# Investors Diversified Services & Travelers Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Howar) (Hoar)

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · February 9, 1987 · 103 Pa. Commw. 562

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649459

## Case

- **Full name:** Investors Diversified Services and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Howar) (Hoar) and Nationwide Insurance Company and Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, Respondents
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 9, 1987
- **Citations:** 103 Pa. Commw. 562; 520 A.2d 958; 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1919
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Palladino
- **Judges:** Barry, Colins, Palladino
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649459

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding insurance agent driving to customers to be a traveling employee

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Palladino:
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority correctly states, the determination of whether an employee is within the course of employment at the time of injury is one of law subject to our review. Jones v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Rehabilitation Coordinators, Inc.), 88 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 426 , 489 A.2d 1006 (1985).
Claimant was invited to attend a Christmas party given by his supervisor. Attendance was not mandatory. This party was not sponsored by the employer nor was it held during working hours. Further, it was held in a *572 private establishment, not on employers premises and was paid for personally by Mr. Barry Mates, claimants supervisor. Mr. Mates was not reimbursed by employer. There is no evidence in the record to indicate the employer was aware that the party was to occur.
In order for the employer to be liable, claimants injuries must be sustained while he was “actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer.” Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §411(1).
This was merely a Christmas party. No business was conducted nor were any clients present. While this event may have had a salutary effect on the collegiality of the workforce, this by-product is not sufficient to establish that claimant was “actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer.” Id. Many employers routinely hold Christmas parties for their staff members which benefit the esprit de corps. Yet, I’m sure this Court is not ready to affirm that every such event is in the course of employment. 1
Accordingly, I would reverse the Board and deny benefits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649459. Public record. Not legal advice.