B 2 U 4/21 R

Nature of the Case

Social security court finding that an employee’s walk to their home office is statutorily insurable in the case of an accident.

Summary

Plaintiff was an area sales manager.  He worked from a fully equipped home office that had been subsidized by his employer and was located on the third floor of his house. On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff suffered a fall at around 7 am while on the way from his room directly to his office, where he intended to start work. He slid on the stairs between the fourth and third floors and suffered a break of his twelfth vertebra. Plaintiff filed a claim for work accident insurance which was denied. He disputed it at the trial court, which determined that the fall Plaintiff suffered was a work accident and his trip to his home office was a work commute; therefore, the accident was insurable. His Employer appealed, and the appeals court dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint. The appeals court held that the Plaintiff’s trip was neither a commute nor protected by insurance, and that protection would begin at the earliest when passing through the door leading out of one’s home. On review, the BSG reversed and granted benefits to review and ultimately sided with the Plaintiff.

The BSG cited the Company Modernization Act (Betriebsrätemodernisierungsgesetz) from June 14, 2021, which regulated work conducted at home. Under the Act, the Plaintiff was permitted to perform his insured work at home. The BSG held that the Act applied retroactively, so the Plaintiff’s home office setup was subject to the protection of statutory accident insurance. The BSG also determined that the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s fall qualified as an accident. German law limits accidents to external events impacting the body that lead either to negative health impact or death. In a work accident, the performance of work must have caused the external event. Because the Plaintiff’s direct, continuous walk to his workplace in which he fell counted as “work,” the fall was a work accident. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to a declaration that his accident was a work accident covered by work insurance.

Furthermore, the BSG explained that there was a difference between a commuting accident and a work accident. The BSG agreed with the Court of Appeals that coverage for a commuting accident would begin when the employee exits their home. Nevertheless, the accident was still covered because the Plaintiff’s trip to his home office was done for the sole purpose of starting his workday. Rather than a “commute,” the BSG held that the trip to the home office was more akin to a “work trip” that was equivalent to company work under the statute. Such work trips are not limited to the company premises but can also occur outside of them. The walk from the Plaintiff’s room to the home office was carried out in the direct interest of the company. On this basis, the Plaintiff had the right to seek insurance coverage.

Finally, the BSG explained that the decisive factor in its determination was the “objectified action tendency” of the insured person to intend to perform an activity that is useful to the company. Whether a journey is made as a “work trip in the interest of the company” and therefore insurable is first determined by the employee’s intent. The employee must have intended to perform an activity that serves the company while performing the activity that led to an accident. Second, the intent must be confirmed by the objective circumstances of the individual case. In evaluating such a case, the trier of fact must take into account all of the surrounding circumstances and which in-home routes the employee took with which intent at the time of the incident. Here, it was significant that the Plaintiff’s accident occurred during his walk from his room directly into his home office–he did not stop by the kitchen to make breakfast or coffee. It was also significant that his employer had subsidized his home office, which was a circumstance that the BSG considered in its determination that the accident was an insurable work accident. For future cases, this “objectified action tendency” standard is one that courts may use when deciding whether an employee’s activity in a home office constitutes a “work activity” in the benefit of the employer and therefore insurable.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

This case answered in the affirmative the question of whether accidents in home office could be covered by statutory accident insurance. Unlike private insurance companies, statutory accident insurance does not pay out premiums, but it assumes the costs of treatment or pays a pension if the accident results in permanent damage. The plaintiff’s specific claims and possible compensation were not addressed in this case. Through this BSG decision, future plaintiffs who suffer similar injuries while working from home can now rely on statutory accident insurance to assist in treatment and pension costs.

Significance of the Case

This case is a win for employee rights in an increasingly digital world, where more and more people work from home offices. Although the facts of the case predate the COVID-19 pandemic, the precedent that the BSG set will allow more and more workers in home office settings to enjoy the benefits granted to workers in traditional office settings.

For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.