Case Name: POINCIANA VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Joseph GALLARANO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-08-23
Citations: 424 So. 2d 822
Docket Number: No. AI-55
Parties: POINCIANA VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Joseph GALLARANO, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 822–825

Head Matter:
POINCIANA VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Joseph GALLARANO, Appellee.
No. AI-55.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 23, 1982.
On Rehearing Oct. 19, 1982.
J. Burke Culler, Jr. of Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Krupnick & Campbell, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, and Tyrie A. Boyer, of Boyer, Tanzler, Blackburn, Boyer & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHAW, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers' compensation order in which the deputy found that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and that the "going and coming rule" was inapplicable. We reverse.
Claimant/appellee, a superintendent with the appellant construction company, was authorized to use his personal automobile to pick up supplies and other materials needed on the job. No records were kept of whether or when the claimant picked up supplies, and use of the vehicle for such purpose was left to claimant's discretion. For the use of his vehicle in this fashion, he was paid an extra $25.00 per week.
On November 20, 1979, claimant was involved in an automobile accident at approximately 6:45 A.M. while traveling from his home in Boca Raton to his work site in West Palm Beach. He testified that he customarily arranged his schedule so as to arrive on the job site at 7:30 A.M. and leave at 4:30 P.M. This testimony was unchallenged. Normally, injuries flowing from such an accident would fall squarely within the "going and coming rule" and would not be compensable. See Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979); George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The deputy found that there was no way to tell from the evidence submitted whether or not the claimant actually was on his way to purchase supplies on the morning that the accident occurred. He nevertheless concluded that
[T]he agreement to pay the claimant $25.00 for his transportation expenses for picking up supplies is in essence a contract to pay the claimant's transportation expenses to the extent of $25.00 per week during the time that the claimant trav-elled to and from work. For this reason, I find that the claimant's accident does not fall within the "going and coming rule." .
It is therefore clear that the award is based upon the extra $25.00 per week that the claimant was paid for using his personal vehicle in the manner aforementioned. We fail to see this as an agreement by the employer to furnish transportation, a recognized exception to the "going and coming rule." Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So.2d 36 (Fla.1965). Such a finding stretches the evidence beyond its probative value and is contrary to the claimant's own testimony that the employer did not pay him for driving his automobile to work. The deputy's reliance upon employer-supplied transportation or an agreement by the employer to pay for the claimant's transportation to work is unwarranted. No other theory having been advanced for excepting the claimant from the "going and coming rule," the award of benefits was error and is accordingly reversed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.