Remote Work and Travel: Understanding the Boundaries of Employment Liability

Authored by Trevor Ivy

As employers increasingly rely on remote workers, courts and regulators, including the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, are confronting a wide range of unresolved issues of liability and workers’ compensation coverage when injuries occur during work-related travel. While remote workers are generally considered to be acting within the course and scope of employment when performing job duties from a home office, whether an injury sustained during travel is compensable depends on several factors.

(1) Travel as an Essential Component of Employment: Does the remote worker routinely travel to customer or client locations, such as travel is an essential element of their job?

(2) Compensation for Travel: Is the employee compensated for their travel time beyond mere reimbursement for expenses? For example, payments for time spent traveling to or from work or while running work-related errands.

(3) Company Vehicle: Does the employer provide the remote employee with a company vehicle? In some cases, this may convert the employee into a “traveling employee.”

(4) Nature of Travel to Employer Premises: Was the employee’s travel to the employer’s premises an isolated event required by special employment needs, or a regularly scheduled and expected component of the job? For remote workers, this distinction determines whether travel from home to a central location is treated as ordinary commuting or compensable work-related travel.

It is generally accepted that the normal commute to and from work is referred to as the “coming and going” principle. Under this principle, injuries sustained during an ordinary commute are typically not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment and are therefore not compensable, unless an exception such as a special errand or traveling employee applies.[1] However, courts have recognized exceptions for employees who are traveling or engaged in a special errand.[2] In such cases, the related travel must exceed the ordinary commute to and from the employer’s premises. Additionally, an injury sustained by a traveling employee is compensable if it occurs while the employee is engaged in reasonable and foreseeable conduct.[3]

Considering the first factor, whether employment requires travel, the Commission examines whether travel is an essential and regular component of the employees’ duties. If travel is infrequent or nonessential, this factor generally weighs against compensability. In Venture-Newberg-Perini v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the court denied compensation to a claimant employed at a single temporary construction site approximately 200 miles from his home who chose to reside near the site and was injured while traveling from that temporary residence. The court observed that the claimant voluntarily accepted the distant assignment, which was terminated upon completion of each project; the claimant was not required to accept the assignment and had not been required to travel to other locations. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the travel at issue constituted a regular commute to and from work.[4]

Similarly, in Allenbaugh v Workers’ Compensation Commission, the claimant, a police officer, was injured in an automobile accident while driving to mandatory training at his employer’s station, which occurred outside his normal work hours. Because the accident happened during his commute, before the training began, and he was not performing work duties or under employer control, the Commission denied compensation.[5]

Considering the second factor, compensation for a traveling employee, the Commission examines whether an employee is compensated for travel, excluding mere reimbursement of expenses. For a traveling employee, any act the employee is directed to perform by the employer, any act the employee has a common-law duty to perform, and any act the employee may reasonably be expected to perform falls within the scope of employment. In Cox v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Second District Appellate Court overturned the Commission’s denial of benefits where a claimant was injured while using an employer-provided vehicle, notwithstanding a brief personal deviation.[6]

Similarly, the Illinois Supreme Court awarded compensation to the dependents of a deceased employee who was killed in a car accident during recurring, long-distance travel to out-of-state job sites. Because the employee’s work required frequent travel, and he received a per diem and lodging near the job site, the court concluded that he was acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident.[7]

In numerous cases, the Commission has awarded compensation to claimants deemed traveling employees who were injured in automobile accidents while traveling to work-related meetings or other employer locations.[8]

The third factor is the special errand exception. The Commission may award compensation when an employee is injured while performing a specific task or errand on behalf of the employer. This exception applies even if the injury happens during travel, as it falls outside the usual “coming and going” rule, which generally excludes injuries sustained while commuting to and from the employer’s premises. When deciding if this applies, the Commission looks at whether the employee’s actions benefited or promoted the employer’s interests, such as completing after-hours tasks at the employer’s request. Additionally, employer-paid travel that helps the employee perform their job can be considered a benefit to the employer. However, an employee traveling must still be engaged in reasonable and foreseeable activities at the time of injury.

The final factor is whether travel to the employer’s premises was an isolated event required by special employment needs or a regularly scheduled and expected component of the job. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of remote work has prompted the Commission to evaluate how work-related injuries outside the traditional workplace are treated. In this analysis, consideration is given to the situs of employment, the employee’s status, the scope of any special errands, and whether travel is routine or exceptional. In one instance, a regional sales manager who routinely worked from home and traveled to meetings was injured while leaving his home to attend a work-related meeting.[9]

By contrast, in another case, a claimant was injured after slipping on ice while walking from her car to a mandatory training location. The appellate court affirmed the denial of benefits, holding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because the claimant was not a traveling employee and the “coming and going” rule applied.[10] While Risner illustrates circumstances where remote travel may be compensable, this case demonstrates when similar travel is not.

A claimant is presumptively considered a remote worker under the following circumstances: (1) the claimant’s residence constitutes the situs of employment; (2) the claimant does not engage in travel to work sites or customer locations in furtherance of employment; (3) the claimant is not provided a company vehicle; (4) the claimant does not receive direction from the employer regarding travel routes; (5) the claimant is not compensated for travel time or expenses; (6) travel to a central employment location occurs during normal business hours; and (7) similarly situated employees also travel to the central employment location to attend the meeting. Where these factors are present, travel to the central location constitutes ordinary “coming and going,” and the remote worker is not acting within the scope of employment. Accordingly, any resulting injuries do not arise out of and in the course of employment.

The Commission has shown that compensation may be awarded under the following circumstances: (1) the claimant is provided with a company vehicle; (2) the claimant is paid for travel to and from the employment premises; (3) the claimant is required to bring work materials to be referenced or displayed during a mandatory meeting; (4) the claimant receives instructions from the employer regarding the routes to be taken; and (5) only the claimant is required to travel to the central location for the meeting.

As remote work continues to reshape traditional employment relationships, determining whether travel-related injuries are compensable requires a fact-specific analysis grounded in long-standing workers’ compensation principles. Both employers and employees benefit from clearly defined roles and responsibilities, particularly as the boundaries between work and personal activities become increasingly blurred. As the remote workforce continues to grow, courts and policymakers must adapt existing legal frameworks to ensure fair, consistent, and predictable outcomes that balance employee protections with employer accountability.

The NBKL blog is provided for informational purposes; we are not giving legal advice or creating an attorney/client relationship by providing this information. Before relying on any legal information of a general nature, you may consider consulting legal counsel as to your particular facts and applications of the law.

[1] Commonwealth Edison Company v. Industrial Commission, 86 Ill. 2d 534 (1981)

[2] Sjostrom v. Sproule, 33 Ill. 2d 40 (1965).

[3] Pryor v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2015 IL App (2nd) 130874WC.

[4] Venture-Newberg-Perini v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (2013) 115728: 1 N.E.3d 535; 2013 Ill. Lexis 1625.

[5] Allenbaugh v Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2016 IL.App(3rd) 150284WC(1916).

[6] Allenbaugh v. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2016 IL App (3d) 150284WC; Cox v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 406 Ill. App. 3d 541, 941 N.E.2d 961, 347 Ill. Dec. 92 (2d Dist. 2010).

[7] Wright v. Industrial Comm’n, 62 Ill. 2d 65 (1975).

[8] Tractor & Equipment Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 78 Ill. 2d 567 (1980); Hoffman v. Industrial Comm’n, 109 Ill. 2d 194 (1985); 141 Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Industrial Comm’n, 2013 IL App (2d) 120252WC; Mechanical Inc. v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2024 IL App (4th) 240319WC-U.

[9] Risner v. Sports Art Fitness, 11 IL WC 02075 (2014).

[10] Hoots v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2022 IL App (4th) 220041WC-U.