Opinion ID: 1018321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: it was performed, although mistakenly or ill-

Text: advisedly, with the intent to further the employer’s interest, or from some impulse or emotion that was the natural consequence of an attempt to do the employer’s business, “and did not arise wholly from some external, independent, and personal motive on the part of the [employee] to do the act upon his account.” Kensington Assocs. v. West, 362 S.E.2d 900, 901 (Va. 1987) (citations omitted). In discarding the ashes as they did, Ward and Bondurant both engaged in an act independent of any other jobrelated function that may have preceded, superceded, or even occurred simultaneously with the act of disposing of the ashes. That distinct act, which must be the focus of our inquiry, was not within the scope of employment. Although Transworld permitted smoking in its buildings, the negligent disposal of smoking materials was not directed by Transworld or naturally incident to Transworld’s manufacturing business. In fact, at the exterior of its premises, Transworld provided its employees with urns specifically designed for the disposal of smoking materials. J.A. 224-25. Nor was the Employees’ act of flicking ashes into a trash can performed with the intent to further the employer’s interest or from an impulse to carry out the employer’s business. The negligent conduct did not promote any business-related interest. 11 Rather, it compromised the employer’s interest in maintaining a safe working environment. The Employees’ conduct “ar[o]se wholly from some external, independent, and personal motive . . . .” Kensington Assocs., 362 S.E.2d at 901. We are thus compelled to conclude as a matter of law that the Employees were not engaged in an act in the scope of their employment when they flicked ashes into a paper-filled trash can on the night of the fire. Accordingly, they were not insured under the first test of coverage.