Employees are covered by statutory accident insurance on the immediate, direct route to and from their place of work. According to existing case law, accident coverage may also apply if we begin our commute to work directly from a location other than our home. For this to apply, an employee must have spent at least two hours at this so-called “third location.” Additionally, this route must not be too far—relative to the usual commute—from the workplace. In late January, the Federal Social Court (BSG) had to rule in two cases on whether statutory accident insurance also applies when employees begin their commute from a location that is far away compared to their usual commute.
In the first case, the plaintiff was registered as living with his parents in Dormagen. His commute to work was two kilometers. On weekdays, however, the man drove to his girlfriend’s place in Mönchengladbach and stayed overnight there. While driving from there by car to his workplace, 44 kilometers away, he was involved in an accident and sustained serious injuries. The employers’ liability insurance association (BG) did not recognize the accident as a commuting accident, arguing that the 44-kilometer route between the “third location”—his girlfriend’s apartment—and the workplace was disproportionately long compared to his usual commute of two kilometers. In the second case, the plaintiff had driven people to a facility for people with disabilities in the morning and picked them up again in the afternoon. After his first trip, he drove to a friend’s house. He stayed there for more than two hours. As he was about to drive to the repair shop, he had an accident on his motorcycle. The BG did not recognize the accident as a commuting accident because the trip to his friend’s house was made for personal reasons. Although his friend’s home was to be considered a “third location,” the route to work was three times as long and therefore no longer reasonable.
Court: Direct Route to Work After a Stopover Is Covered by Accident Insurance
The Federal Social Court saw it differently: Both the girlfriend’s apartment in the first case and the friend’s apartment visited in the second case were to be regarded as a “third location.” The plaintiffs had spent more than two hours there and then set off directly for work. This was sufficient for accident coverage. According to the judges, it no longer matters whether the route from the “third location” is disproportionately long or particularly risky. The Federal Social Court departed from earlier rulings, some of which had reached the opposite conclusion. To “ensure legal certainty,” the decisive factor is that employees spent at least two hours at the third location and intended to travel directly from there to work.
Tjark Menssen is a lawyer at DGB Rechtsschutz GmbH.
