context: One statutory exclusion from course and scope is implicated in this case: "transportation to and from the place of employment." Id. SS 401.011(12)(A). This exclusion is commonly referred to as the "coming and going" exclusion. If .an employee's ultimate destinations are home and work, despite any intermediate stops in-between, the "coming and going" exclusion merits analysis.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 330 S.W.3d 239, 246
citation_a.parenthetical: "The 'coming and going' rule developed ... specifically for travel between home and work."
citation_a.sentence: Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239, 246 (Tex.2010) (“The ‘coming and going’ rule developed ... specifically for travel between home and work.”); see Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. McVey, 339 S.W.3d 724, 727-29 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011, pet. denied) (analyzing the “coming and going” exclusion because the travel was between work and home even though the injury occurred while the employee was first on his way to pick up a co-worker and then to a mandatory work conference in another city).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 339 S.W.3d 724, 727-29
citation_b.parenthetical: analyzing the "coming and going" exclusion because the travel was between work and home even though the injury occurred while the employee was first on his way to pick up a co-worker and then to a mandatory work conference in another city
citation_b.sentence: Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239, 246 (Tex.2010) (“The ‘coming and going’ rule developed ... specifically for travel between home and work.”); see Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. McVey, 339 S.W.3d 724, 727-29 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011, pet. denied) (analyzing the “coming and going” exclusion because the travel was between work and home even though the injury occurred while the employee was first on his way to pick up a co-worker and then to a mandatory work conference in another city).