Article ID: 5320c44cea43afebf4707d2e6324b060ff3f8417b85691b4d4313d93101ff4e0
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
Body Text
Appellate court revives dispute over fatality involving Subway employee - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Appellate court revives dispute over fatality involving Subway employee by Louise Esola Workers Comp Coverage , Workplace Safety Apr 17, 2026 A fatal crash involving a Subway worker who was speeding and had marijuana in her system must be reconsidered because the wrong legal standard was applied in awarding workers compensation benefits, an Illinois appellate court ruled Monday. In Subway v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission , the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District reversed a lower court ruling and set aside a decision by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission that had granted death benefits to the family of an employee killed in a car accident. The case stems from a 2022 accident in which the employee, who was delivering supplies between Subway locations, died after crashing into a stopped truck. Evidence indicated possible distraction, including cell phone use, as well as speeding and the presence of marijuana in her system, according to the record. An arbitrator initially found the death compensable and awarded benefits, concluding the employee had not acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for her safety. The commission affirmed that decision, and a circuit court upheld it. However, the appellate court said those rulings applied the wrong legal test. Because the employee was a “traveling employee,” her claim should have been evaluated under a standard assessing whether her actions were “reasonable and foreseeable” in the course of employment, the court said. Instead, the commission relied on a more lenient standard focused on whether the employee engaged in intentional or reckless misconduct, which the appellate panel said was inappropriate for traveling employee cases. The distinction is significant because traveling employees are generally considered to be in the course of employment for the duration of their trips, but may lose coverage if their conduct is deemed unreasonable or unforeseeable. Finding the use of the incorrect legal framework dispositive, the court reversed the circuit court judgment and remanded the case to the commission for reconsideration under the proper standard. Related News The BI Top 10 for the week of April 13, 2026 April 17, 2026 Wis. high court upholds asbestos verdict against Pabst April 17, 2026 More than a sprinkle of risk management April 17, 2026 Berkley names oil and gas leader April 17, 2026 Beazley to launch $1B marine war consortium April 17, 2026 Airlines cancel routes as fuel prices bite April 17, 2026 Cat bond issuances hits record $6.7B in Q1 April 17, 2026 Insurers eye cat bonds to expand data center cover: Guy Carpenter April 17, 2026 ICICI Lombard’s premiums rise 17% April 17, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 13.166666666666666
}