Leordeanu v American protection Insurance Company

Leordeanu v American protection Insurance Company

Parties: 

Liana Leordeanu is the plaintiff; she is a pharmaceutical sales representative who works from her apartment while American Protection Insurance Company (APIC) is the defendant.

Legal 

Litigation in this case is civil since it is between an individual and an organization.

Proceedings:

  1. a) Liana seeks compensation from the insurance company due to her accident.
    b) Trial court’s decision was in favor of the plaintiff, that the APIC should compensate her because she was still in the scope of her occupation when the accident occurred.
  2. c) The appellate court’s decision reversed the initial one and ruled in favor of the APIC because there was not enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff was in the course of her work.

Facts:

Plaintiff Liana Leordeanu, operates her business in her apartment. On the said day, she was required to attend some business appointments. After the appointments that took place in Bastrop, she went back to South Austin for a dinner with some of her clients. As she was returning to her apartment, she decided to pass by a self-storage unit provided by the company. Leordeanu intended to empty her car of all the business supplies as she was planning a personal trip the following day. However, in the course of her journey, she got into an accident by running off the highway and she obtained serious injuries.

Legal Provision:

Rules of law applicable in Leordeanu case include the 1917 Texas Workers Compensation Act. It elaborated that an injury to be compensated should be obtained during employment. However, the act has undergone several amendments since its inception.

Issues

Issued presented in court regarding this case include those stating that the plaintiff should not be compensated because the accident did not occur in the scope of her employment. According to the 1917 enactment, which had two components pertaining to the law, the injury in question should relate to the victim’s occupation. Leordeanu had a difficult case because she could not prove a direct involvement between her job and the accident. Secondly, the enactment states that the injury should occur in the course of carrying out any business concerning the employer; APIC stated that the plaintiff was on her way home and thus was not in the capacity of her employment.

Decision: 

Decisions varied from the committee, to the trial court and finally the appellate court. As the appellate is the court with the highest jurisdiction, their court was considered final. Its decision favored APIC and the plaintiff was not compensated for her injuries. APIC won the case because they die not have to grant Leordeanu her worker’s compensation.

Rule of the case:

Leordeanu’s case laid down the general rule that for compensation to take place, a worker should satisfy the two conditions stated in the 1917 enactment. Injuries should be acquired while on the job, or as the worker is furthering the business needs of the employer. If these two conditions are not satisfied as in Leordeanu’s case, the insurance company should not compensate the worker in question.

Reasons:

Reasons given by the court with regard to their decision is that there is no evidence that proves that the plaintiff was indeed in the course of her employment duties at the time the accident occurred. This decision came about because the plaintiff was also on her way home when the accident occurred, therefore, it was not certain if she was still working.

Concurring &Dissenting Opinions
N/A

Legal Terminology

  1. a) Plaintiff is the individual lodging the complaint
  2. b) Defendant is the individual or organization the complaint is made against
  3. c) Enactment refers to the process that a bill goes through before it becomes a law

Relationship:
1.An advantage this law provides to the safety professional is that they are guaranteed of their security while working or carrying out any business associated to the business.

  1. An implication presented to the professional by this law is that they need to prove that the accident occurred in the course of their job. If they cannot do that, they may risk not being compensated.

 

Reference

McClellan, Bradley Dean. , Latson, Jack W., Stokes, Robert D. (2010) LEORDEANU v. AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1546814.html

 

 

 

 

 

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]