Key Takeaways:

• A November 21 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court clarifying the authorized vehicle rule of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act has implications for employers throughout New Jersey.

• The case involved injuries sustained as a pest-control technician traveled in a company-owned vehicle from his home to the employer’s facility to replenish his chemical supply before starting any jobs for the day.

• The court determined it is not necessary for the employer to own the vehicle in question for the accident to be compensable, and the employee need not be engaged in duties expressly assigned or directed by the employer, so long as the employer authorized the duties.

On November 21, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Henry Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control. In this case, the petitioner, a pest-control technician, was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He had been provided with an employer-owned truck to drive to job sites, and he would park the truck at his home overnight. The employer limited the amount of chemicals the petitioner was permitted to keep in the truck, as there were concerns about possible theft or damage to the chemicals when they were stored in the truck. Accordingly, the employer had authorized technicians to drive to the employer’s facility as needed to replenish the supply of chemicals in the trucks.

At the time of the relevant accident, the petitioner was traveling in the work truck from his home to his employer’s facility to replenish his chemical supply, and prior to starting any jobs for the day. The respondent denied the claim, arguing in part that the injury occurred on the petitioner’s commute, and the injury was therefore not compensable according to the premises rule. The judge of compensation agreed with this argument and the dismissed petitioner’s claim. The appellate division reversed. The employer appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and held that this section of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act contains four distinct rules: the premises rule, the special mission rule, the paid travel time rule, and the authorized vehicle rule. The court provided instructive discussion of each rule, but ultimately held that this injury was compensable under the authorized vehicle rule. The statute says the following with respect to this rule: “the employment of … any employee who utilizes an employer authorized vehicle shall commence and terminate with the … authorized operation of a vehicle on business authorized by the employer.”

The court’s analysis of the authorized vehicle rule is significant for employers and carriers. First, the court clarifies that it is not necessary for the employer to own the vehicle in question for the accident to be compensable (although the employer did own the vehicle in question in this case). Second, the court held that the employee need not be engaged in duties expressly assigned or directed by the employer, so long as the duties were authorized by the employer.

Employers would benefit from implementing clear policies regarding employee authorization with respect to the use of vehicles in order to avoid unintended liability under this new decision.