Insurance: driving TO work vs driving FOR work

[The_Jeff]

So we all know one needs special insurance to deliver newspapers, pizzas, etc.

A friend has an office job and she spends 90% of her time there, but occasionally has to make field trips for stuff. It is her expertise needed in the field; she brings a briefcase or backpack but that's about it. Her work reimburses for mileage and personal car use, and she's on the hourly clock when driving.

What are the insurance ramifications of this, mostly pertaining to her liability? I assume she's golden if she gets in a wreck: worker's comp would cover it. But I'm just curious about getting sued by a 3rd party.

 

[Shannow]

First up, Australians were always covered by compensation driving TO and FROM work (via the most reasonable direct way - throw in a trip to the shops, and you own the second part of the trip)...logic was that you were doing the trip for one reason only...CONservatives got in, and took that for a massive reduction in workers comp premiums of $ZERO

Once in, and on the books, you are covered by compensation.

Car not so, as at least down here the car must be insured for "business and work related" activities, at a much higher premium.

A crusty payroll officer once advised a lot of us not to drive our own cars and seek reimbursement, as the companies insurers at the time (self insured company) would drop your and your insurance company in as the patsy even if they did direct the activity, and if your insurance didn't cover work related activity, you could be done over.

 

[KD0AXS]

Honestly, rather than ask on a forum and get everyone's opinion and what they heard from their sister's mother in law's cousin's brother, I'd advise her to consult with her insurance agent as to whether or not she has the proper coverage. If she needs coverage that costs more money, she should ask her employer to reimburse her for those expenses.

 

[The_Jeff]

If she asked, though, what if she got a verbal response? Would the company back that up? How would she do that without tipping her hand that she's driving to/for work? I ask because maybe there's some case law out there that's decided this already.

If she asked her agent, the agent isn't ultimately the lawyer whose fiduciary interest is in screwing her over.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
If she asked, though, what if she got a verbal response? Would the company back that up? How would she do that without tipping her hand that she's driving to/for work? I ask because maybe there's some case law out there that's decided this already.

If she asked her agent, the agent isn't ultimately the lawyer whose fiduciary interest is in screwing her over.


Other than switching insurance co often to evade mileage, they will know by the excessive miles.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: eljefino"
How would she do that without tipping her hand that she's driving to/for work?


She doesn't. What she should do is sit down with her agent, tell him/her exactly what she's using her vehicle for, and make sure she has the proper coverage.

 

[JHZR2]

At least for my work, if I use POV, I get mileage reimbursement at the IRS deductible rate. It is considered commuting to my temporary duty assignment, so it is commuting just like normal, just to another place. If your work has multiple job sites, so be it.

Issue is that if, say, I get into an accident, while I might (never checked) be allowed to obtain worker's comp or life insurance in case of a fatal accident, if something happens to my vehicle, its all on me. It goes against my record regardless, sure, but the payer is now my insurance and myself, as opposed to the employer's coverage and legal protection.

So youre paid at a decent rate per mile to cover that, but there is a risk and excess liability associated that they are paying you for.

 

[AVB]

Here mileage doesn't matter. My personal opinion is that should count as commuting, since you are only transporting yourself to a job site. I view being compensated for travel as a job perk, if you aren't hired for the use of your vehicle as a condition of employment. She could accomplish the same thing by taking a cab. That is how I would vote if I were on a jury anyway.

 

[99Saturn]

Does she have any relationship with her insurance agent or is she just another person they collect a premium from?

Personally, I would go ask my agent if this was the case, how would it effect the type of coverage I need/have, as well as my premium. I understand not all insurance agents may be that forthcoming though, or may just ask is that the case.

Add: She should dig out the actual definitions used when determining her policy/drivers class. I believe mine is worded "primarily for business" but I could be wrong.

 

[eagle23]

Unless there is a specific exclusion, the insurance follows the car. Her "business use" is incidental, not primary. She can check her exclusions, or ask her agent that if she started to use her car like that, would there be surcharge. I doubt it. She can email him, which creates a paper trail.

I use my car on the job and get paid mileage. My agent (State Farm) knows it. Once they understood I wasn't carrying anything but a briefcase, they were fine. I 've done this over 35 years without incident.

 

[The Critic]

This is a non-owned auto exposure. I would think that most businesses have hired/non-owned auto coverage on their package or BOP.

The hired/non-owned coverage is almost always going to be excess.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
How would she do that without tipping her hand that she's driving to/for work?


She needs to be upfront with her question. If it requires additional insurance coverage then she either pays for the insurance, or speak with her employer about the added costs.

Otherwise it's lying, plain and simple.

 

[Subdued]

Look at it this way. Most people drive somewhere to lunch during the work day. Do we need extra coverage for that? I don't see much difference between that and occasionally going in the field for something.

Insurance companies can't decide they're not covering you because you got into an accident while they thought you were at work.

Now, if she was using her car for delivery or making a living out in the field, that's a different story entirely.

 

[donnyj08]

Originally Posted By: Subdued
Look at it this way. Most people drive somewhere to lunch during the work day. Do we need extra coverage for that? I don't see much difference between that and occasionally going in the field for something.

Insurance companies can't decide they're not covering you because you got into an accident while they thought you were at work.

Now, if she was using her car for delivery or making a living out in the field, that's a different story entirely.


^ this. there is a big difference in using your vehicle as a service vehicle and making a trip or two a week across town to visit a client. If she is in an accident then she will be covered. The exception would be if her job changed and she began using it daily as part of her job to perform service work or deliveries.

She would then be advised to seek a more fitting insurance policy. Most mileage amounts are adequate enough to take into consideration higher than normal insurance rates,gas mileage, as well as "normal Maintenance".

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: eljefino
If she asked, though, what if she got a verbal response? Would the company back that up? How would she do that without tipping her hand that she's driving to/for work? I ask because maybe there's some case law out there that's decided this already.

If she asked her agent, the agent isn't ultimately the lawyer whose fiduciary interest is in screwing her over.


Other than switching insurance co often to evade mileage, they will know by the excessive miles.


Waitwhat? I used to do 35,000+ per year, and I NEVER drove my own car for work!

 

[The Critic]

Not to toot my own horn here, but Pop_Rivit and I already gave the correct answer to the OP for this scenario.

This is an exposure that the employer should already be aware of and is your typical non-owned auto exposure. This needs to be discussed/confirmed with the employer.

The employees personal insurance is going to be primary, and the non-owned auto coverage from the employe will be excess. Most carriers want to see significant limits carried by the individual to minimize their exposure.