Can employment contracts override workers' compensation coverage determinations? Colvin v. Giguere Explained

In Colvin v. Giguere, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether contractual provisions denying pay for travel time can override workers’ compensation coverage when employees are injured during work-related travel. The case provides important guidance on how Utah courts analyze the course of employment determination under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Background and Facts

Kelly Colvin and Joseph Giguere were employees of Advanced Millwork Installation who had completed cabinet installation projects in Virginia and Maryland. While returning to Utah in the company van, Giguere was driving when a fatal accident occurred in Kansas. Giguere’s employment contract specifically stated that Advanced would not pay for time spent returning from out-of-town job sites. The trip served multiple purposes: transporting company assets back to Utah and enabling Colvin to quickly reach another project in Spanish Fork. Colvin’s family sued Giguere for negligence, arguing he was not in the course of employment since he was unpaid during the return trip.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Giguere and Colvin were within the course of employment at the time of the accident, despite contractual language denying pay for return travel. This determination was crucial because if they were in the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision would bar the negligence lawsuit.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that employment contracts are not determinative of course of employment coverage. Instead, courts must examine the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the work relationship. The Court applied the special errand exception to the going-and-coming rule, finding that Colvin and Giguere were performing a special errand for their employer. The return trip was unusual (longest distance project for the company), onerous (driving straight through after sixteen hours of work), and sudden (hastily planned to reach the Spanish Fork project quickly). Importantly, the trip benefited the employer by transporting company assets and facilitating completion of another project.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that contractual provisions regarding pay do not conclusively determine workers’ compensation coverage. Practitioners should focus on whether the employer benefited from the travel and exercised control over it, rather than simply whether compensation was provided. The special errand analysis considers factors like the unusualness, onerousness, and suddenness of the assignment. When advising clients on employment contracts or workers’ compensation coverage, attorneys should emphasize that actual workplace practices and circumstances will govern coverage determinations regardless of contractual disclaimers.