7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shelton v. Standard Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2012This conclusion comports with the continuous coverage doctrine, under which an employee is regarded as “being in the course of his employment when the injury has its origin in a risk created by the necessity of sleeping or eating away from home, except when a distinct departure on a personal errand is shown.” Shelton, 389 S.W.2d at 293 . 2012See Shelton, 389 S.W.2d at 292-93 (while observing that "this is not a ‘going to or returning from' case,” the supreme court nonetheless applied the continuous coverage doctrine to a truck driver who was struck by a car while crossing the street to walk from his motel to a restaurant during an overnight layover in the midst of work-related travel between two of his employer's facilities). 4 . | 2 | 5 |
Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Ronald Jerrolsgreen2 sentences2015In reversing the trial court’s summary judgment, the court rejected this argument as an expansive characterization of the continuous coverage doctrine33 and, instead, concluded that the proper method to evaluate compensability was the dual purpose doctrine, and then finding conflict resulting in the reversal of summary judgment.34 31 Seabright, 427 S.W.3d at 450 . 32 Jerrols, 385 S.W.3d 619 . 33 Id at 633. 34 Id at 635. 13 CONCLUSION Here, while the Court accurately reflects the required three-step analysis for evaluating compensability in a travel case, the Court’s application of the facts to 2015Co. v. Jerrols, 385 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d.) As this Court aptly explained in Seabright, the continuous coverage rule 3 protects employees whose work is away from the employer’s premises, not travel from the employee's home to the work site. | 1 | 2 |
Leordeanu v. American Protection Insurance Co.green1 sentence2012See Leordeanu, 330 S.W.3d at 245 ; Evans, 790 S.W.2d at 304-05 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Cobb
green
2 sentences2009This case is not akin to Orgon or other cases that have applied the continuous coverage principle such as Shelton v. Standard Insurance Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965), and Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n. v. Cobb, 118 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1938, writ ref'd). 2009This case is not akin to Orgon or other cases that have applied the continuous coverage principle such as Shelton v. Standard Insurance Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.1965), and Texas Employers Insurance Ass’n. v. Cobb, 118 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1938, writ ref'd). | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Seabright Insurance Company v. Maxima Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez
green
2 sentences2015In reversing the trial court’s summary judgment, the court rejected this argument as an expansive characterization of the continuous coverage doctrine33 and, instead, concluded that the proper method to evaluate compensability was the dual purpose doctrine, and then finding conflict resulting in the reversal of summary judgment.34 31 Seabright, 427 S.W.3d at 450 . 32 Jerrols, 385 S.W.3d 619 . 33 Id at 633. 34 Id at 635. 13 CONCLUSION Here, while the Court accurately reflects the required three-step analysis for evaluating compensability in a travel case, the Court’s application of the facts to 2015Seabright, 427 S.W.3d at 450 n. 2. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Maria Rodriguez, Individually and as Next Friend of Antonio and Evangelina Rodriguez, Minors, and Daniel Rodriguez v. Great American Indemnity Company
neutral
2 sentences2012Texas Mutual urges us to distinguish Shelton on this basis and to rely instead on Rodriguez v. Great American Indemnity Company, 244 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1957). 2012Texas Mutual urges us to distinguish Shelton on this basis and to rely instead on Rodriguez v. Great American Indemnity Company, 244 F.2d 484 (5th Cir.1957). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Evans v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau
green
2 sentences2012See Leordeanu, 330 S.W.3d at 245 ; Evans, 790 S.W.2d at 304-05 . 2012See Leordeanu, 330 S.W.3d at 245 ; Evans, 790 S.W.2d at 304-05 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Prasek
green
2 sentences2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia 2012Berry also cites Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Prasek, 569 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Travelers Insurance Company v. McAllister, 345 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1961, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey
green
1 sentence2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lujan v. Houston General Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Travelers Insurance Company v. McAllister
green
1 sentence2012Berry also cites Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Prasek, 569 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Travelers Insurance Company v. McAllister, 345 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1961, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Yeldell v. Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.