Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Perez et al
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 05/30/18. (wh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUIS PEREZ,
TEXAS CES, INC., d/b/a
STRIDE WELL SERVICES,
and JUAN DEL ANGEL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number CIV-16-486-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed the present action seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable
to Defendants for claims made on a business insurance policy. The parties agreed to waive
their right to a jury trial and present the matter to the Court for determination of “whether,
at the time of the accident on May 27, 2014, Luis Perez and Juan Del Angel, employees of
Stride Well Services, were acting within the course and scope of their employment
pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 2.” (Dkt. No. 45, p. 1). The parties have filed their briefs
and all response and replies.
On May 27, 2014, Rollo Dickenson was driving a Chevrolet Silverado which was
leased by his employer, Defendant Stride Well.
Dickenson failed to yield at an
intersection resulting in a collision with another vehicle. Defendants Perez, Del Angel,
and non-party Jeremiah Underwood were all passengers in the Silverado. All persons in
the Silverado were employees of Defendant Stride Well and were traveling back to work
from a luncheon in the company vehicle.* Plaintiff argues that because the employees
were in the course and scope of their employment their injuries are not compensable under
the insurance policy, but rather must be pursued through a worker’s compensation claim.
In support of this claim, Plaintiff argues that the employees had traveled together in a
company vehicle with the permission of their employer to attend a luncheon, and the
accident occurred as they were returning to work. According to Plaintiff, because all of
this activity occurred within the course and scope of their employment, there is no coverage
available under the insurance policy.
In response, Defendants argue that they were not acting in the course and scope of
their employment, as there was no benefit provided to their employer or work-related
activity connected to the travel to the luncheon.
The parties have submitted extensive briefs and evidence; however, the substance
of the dispute is addressed in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Perez and Del Angel’s
brief. There Plaintiff states:
The Defendants point out and Liberty agrees, the “free luncheon” was
provided by one of Stride Well’s customers, Quantum; was held off “site”;
there was no business discussed nor were the four compelled to attend the
luncheon. However, it is acknowledged by Perez and Del Angel that the
four employees traveled from the job site to the free luncheon, in a company
vehicle and were returning to the site, at the conclusion of the luncheon when
the accident occurred.
*
The luncheon was an event put on by non-party Quantum Resources Inc. According
to the evidence presented, the luncheon was provided as a benefit to the community as a
whole and no special benefit was provided to Defendant Stride Well Services or its
employees. (Dkt. No. 40, Exs. 5 & 6.)
2
(Dkt. No. 54, p. 1). The question is whether, in those circumstances, Defendants
Perez and Del Angel can be said to be acting in the course and scope of their
employment.
Plaintiff argues that the employees had been at the jobsite, left in a company
truck, and were returning to the worksite when the accident occurred. However,
those facts are insufficient to establish the employees were in the course and scope
of their employment.
First, as noted above, Plaintiff concedes that the employees were neither
compelled by their employer to attend the luncheon nor was any business conducted
at the luncheon. Thus, the facts of this case are distinguishable from Carroll v. Dist.
Court of Fifteenth Judicial Dist. Court, Cherokee Cty., 1978 OK 73, 579 P.2d 828.
In that case the employee was injured by a private vehicle while he was performing
his work as a volunteer firefighter. Likewise, Plaintiff’s reliance on the case of
L.E. Jones Drilling Co. v. Hodge, 2013 OK CIV APP 111, ¶ 7, 315 P.3d 1025, 1027,
is unhelpful. In L.E. Jones Drilling, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held that
an employee who was on duty 24 hours a day and was provided a company vehicle
to travel when necessary to perform his job duties was considered in the course and
scope of his employment when driving that vehicle.
Here, the facts are
significantly different. There is no evidence the employees were in the vehicle to
perform job duties at the time of the collision. Further, Plaintiff’s argument that
the employees were being paid at the time of the collision is not supported by the
3
evidence before the Court.
While Plaintiff has provided some evidence of
payment, Defendants Perez and Del Angel have countered that showing with
competent evidence and with evidence that casts substantial doubt on Plaintiff’s
position. Plaintiff has the burden of proof on the issue, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden. This failure also disposes of Plaintiff’s
arguments relying on Future Environmental Inc. and Own Risk #17344, Insurance
Carrier, Petitioners v. Nathaniel Mace and The Workers’ Compensation
Commission, Case No. 116,134 (WCN-116-134). In that case the employee was
undisputedly on the clock when the injury occurred.
The failure to establish the employees were on the clock at the time of the
collision overcomes at least half of the arguments raised by Defendant Texas CES,
Inc., d/b/a Stride Well Services (Stride Well), in its brief. Stride Well argues
employees are in the course and scope of their employment when the employer
furnishes the transportation or pays travel expenses. For the same reasons noted
above, the Court finds there is insufficient proof that Perez and Del Angel were
being paid at the time of the collision. The employer-provided-transportation
argument fails because although the employees were in a company vehicle at the
time of the collision, that vehicle was not provided for the purpose of furthering
Stride Well’s needs.
4
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments relying on election of
remedies and estoppel are waived by the parties’ agreement on the issue to be
presented to the Court for resolution.
As set forth more fully herein, the injuries suffered by Luis Perez and Juan
Del Angel are not covered by the Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Thus,
Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment is DENIED. A separate Judgment will
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2018.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?