While gunshot wounds or deaths are not common workplace injuries, they have become more frequent in the past few years. According to an article in TIME, among companies with employer-sponsored health insurance, the rate of total firearm injuries in employees and dependents increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2020—from 2.6 to 11.7 per 100,000 insurance enrollees. However, the circumstances surrounding a gun-shot injury or death at a worksite are not always clear and may have surprising outcomes depending on the jurisdiction. In 2023 several such cases were notable.
Florida Man
The Florida 1st District Court of Appeal rejected workers’ compensation insurance benefits for a general manager of an Orlando rental-car agency who was shot seven times while on the job. The court said the employee had not shown a “causal link” between the injuries he suffered and the work he performed for the company. It seemed the employee was shot because of a personal disagreement with the shooter that had nothing to do with work. This, by the way, was the most read workers' comp story of 2023 in the magazine Business Insurance.
Tennessee Appeals Board Denies Summary Judgment
In another case, where the “causal link” was equally tenuous the Tennessee Workers Comp Appeals Board ruled differently:
The shooting occurred in an auto repair shop during a conversation about a private gun sale where an employee accidentally shot the shop manager. The manager filed for benefits seeking compensation for physical injuries but also alleged a mental injury. The employer, Steve Towers Enterprises LLC, challenged the comp petition, arguing the injury didn’t arise out of employment since a transaction involving a personal weapon was not a risk inherent to employment at an auto repair shop.
A judge determined summary judgment for the employer was warranted because the incident was not connected to work. However, the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board determined that summary judgment for the employer was not appropriate at this stage of the litigation because a dispute lingered over facts in the case. The board ruled that the employee met his burden of demonstrating “genuine issues of material fact impacting the question of whether this injury arose primarily out of his employment.” The board remanded the case for further proceedings.
Independent Contractors May Be Covered
In a third case, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated a determination that a defendant was correct to deny plaintiff benefits on the ground that he was an independent contractor, not an employee.
For more information or help, contact the Insurance professionals of EPIC’s CRA ProRental™ Insurance Program. Call us at: 800.234.6363 or email us at prorental@epicbrokers.com.