Most people know one rule about work travel: the drive to work isn't covered. That rule is real, but it is the starting point, not the whole answer. I talk to injured Nebraskans who dropped a valid claim because a supervisor or adjuster quoted the first half of the rule and skipped the rest.
Here is how Nebraska actually draws the line, from the statute and the court decisions applying it.
The two-part test every claim has to pass
Nebraska's workers' compensation statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-101, pays benefits when an injury is caused by an accident or occupational disease "arising out of and in the course of" the worker's employment, as long as the worker was not willfully negligent.
Those two phrases do different jobs, and the Nebraska Supreme Court has said both have to be proven. "Arising out of" looks at the cause: did the risk come from the work? "In the course of" looks at the time, place, and circumstances. In Zoucha v. Touch of Class Lounge (2005), the Court described an injury in the course of employment as one that happens within the period of the employment, at a place the employee reasonably may be, while doing the job or something incidental to it.
Travel cases almost always turn on the second phrase: were you "at work" when it happened?
The baseline: an ordinary commute usually isn't covered
Here is how the Nebraska Supreme Court stated the going-and-coming rule in Torres v. Aulick Leasing, Inc. (2001): injuries sustained going to and coming from work are not covered "unless it is determined that a distinct causal connection exists between an employer-created condition and the occurrence of the injury."
Notice the "unless." Before 1998, Nebraska used a bright-line premises rule: off property your employer owned, a trip to or from work wasn't covered. The Court abandoned that approach in La Croix v. Omaha Public Schools (1998). So "it happened on the way to work" is a reason to look harder, not a reason to stop.
Situation one: you were still on the employer's premises
Coming and going on the employer's premises is treated differently from the public road. In Zoucha, the Court repeated a long-standing Nebraska rule: an employee leaving the employer's premises in the usual and customary way after the work is done is still within the course of employment.
What counts as the premises is broader than the building. The Court said parking lots owned or maintained by an employer are generally part of its premises. It went further for shared lots: a shopping-center lot provided for and used by employees of the businesses in the center is part of the premises of an employer located there, even though the employer didn't own or control it. In that case, a bartender hurt beside her car in the strip-mall lot after closing up was found to be in the course of her employment.
The statute points the same direction. Section 48-151(6) says property maintained by an employer counts as its premises when deciding whether an injury arose out of employment.
So a slip on an icy employee lot or a fall on the walkway from your car deserves a real look, clocked in or not.
Situation two: your employer created the hazard off the premises
La Croix is the Omaha case that changed the rule, and its facts are worth knowing. A school district employee parked in a city-owned lot about two blocks from her worksite. Parking near the building was usually full. When she interviewed she was told to use that lot when the near lot filled up, a memo encouraged employees to use it, and the district ran a shuttle from the lot to the building. She slipped in the lot walking to the shuttle.
The district didn't own the lot. The Court found the injury covered anyway, because by encouraging employees to park there and providing transportation from it, the employer created a condition under which employees would necessarily encounter that hazard on the way in.
The same opinion noted that Nebraska had already allowed compensation where an employer furnished transportation to work and the employee was hurt while riding in the employer-owned vehicle. If your company runs the van, the bus, or the crew truck that gets you to the site, a crash on that ride stands on different footing than a crash in your own car on your own schedule.
Situation three: travel is part of the job
Some workers don't commute to a fixed place at all; the road is the workplace. Nebraska calls this the commercial traveler rule. As Torres put it, a commercial traveler is regarded as acting in the course of employment during the entire period of travel on the employer's business.
Two conditions come from the same opinion. You must be required to travel in the performance of your duties, and the employer's mission must be the major factor in the trip, not just incidental to it. Courts decide this from the facts of each case.
Think of the service technician driving call to call, the inspector moving between job sites, the home health aide going house to house, and the over-the-road driver. For drivers, my page on truck driver injuries explains how coverage can follow you to the fuel island.
Situation four: the special errand
The special errand exception covers the worker who normally has set hours and a set place, but who makes a trip outside them because the employer asked. Torres quotes the leading treatise: the trouble, time, hazard, or urgency of the trip can make it "an integral part of the service itself." Nebraska applies the exception, the Court said, where there is "instruction, direction, requirement, or suggestion" by the employer that the employee make the journey.
The Court's own example comes from a 1938 Nebraska case it discussed in Torres. A gravel hauler was told to take his employer's gas tank home, fill it, and bring it back to the pit the next morning. He was killed on the way to work with the full tank, and the award for his family was upheld. An ordinary morning drive became a work trip because of what the boss told him to bring.
Where travel claims fall apart
Torres is also a lesson in how these claims are lost. A truck driver from Scottsbluff was assigned to a project in Wyoming expected to last months. The company let drivers take company trucks home on weekends for short jobs, but for longer ones, after the first two weeks, drivers used their own vehicles. He drove home for a weekend of family errands, unpaid, and on his way back before dawn Monday he swerved to avoid a deer and rolled his car.
The compensation court denied the claim and the Supreme Court affirmed. The worksite was fixed for that job, so the going-and-coming rule applied. The weekend trip was his choice, not required, and unpaid, so he was not a commercial traveler. And although his foreman had told him to take the company truck in for repairs that Monday, that errand was supposed to start after he got back and hauled a load, so he hadn't begun it yet.
The statute adds a related limit. Section 48-151(6) excludes workers who "on their own initiative leave their line of duty or hours of employment for purposes of their own." A personal detour in the middle of a work trip can become the insurer's main argument.
Two hypotheticals
These are made-up examples, not real cases or clients, meant only to show how the questions get asked.
Hypothetical one: the HVAC tech. A technician leaves his second service call of the day headed for his third and is rear-ended at a stoplight. He has no fixed workplace that day; the calls are the job. That looks like travel in performance of his duties, and the next question is the other driver (more on that below).
Hypothetical two: the bank deposit. A retail shift lead with set hours is told by her manager to drop the night deposit at the bank on her way home. She slips on the bank's icy steps. Without the deposit, it's a commute. With it, there is an employer instruction behind the trip, which is what the special errand exception looks for.
What the insurance company will say, and how to answer
- "Commutes aren't covered." True as a starting point. Ask which exception they considered and why it doesn't apply. Often they considered none.
- "You weren't on the clock." Being paid helps, but the premises rule and the special errand exception don't depend on a timecard.
- "The lot isn't ours." Ownership isn't the test. Zoucha and La Croix both involved lots the employer didn't own.
- "You stopped for coffee." Then the question is whether the stop was a real personal departure, and whether you were back on the work route when hurt.
Evidence that decides travel claims
These cases are fact-driven, so save:
- Texts, emails, or work-app messages telling you where to go, what to pick up, or which lot to use. In La Croix, a memo and what she was told at her interview mattered.
- Your dispatch log, route sheet, or service ticket for the day.
- Mileage reimbursement records, per diem, or a fuel card in your name.
- Any company policy on vehicle use, parking, or shuttles.
- Photos of where you fell or the vehicle damage, taken early.
Report the injury in writing right away and say where you were going and why. My guide on how to file a workers' comp claim lays out the steps. If an adjuster wants your story on tape, read my post on recorded statements first; a casual "I was just heading home" can sink a trip that had a work purpose.
If another driver hit you
A work-travel crash caused by someone else usually means more than one claim. How comp and a claim against the at-fault driver fit together, and how the comp carrier gets repaid, is on my page about car accidents while working. Read it before signing anything with either insurer.
Mistakes I see in travel claims
- Taking the denial letter as the last word. It's a legal opinion from the party that has to pay. See my page on denied claims and my post on what happens after a comp denial.
- Deleting the messages. The text that sent you on the errand may be the whole case.
- Under-describing the trip. "Driving to work" and "driving to the site the foreman sent me to, with company parts in my trunk" are very different claims.
For the wider picture, see what injuries are covered.
Why workers call me when the claim turns on where they were
Travel and parking-lot claims are won on details: who told you to go, which lot, whose truck. I dig into those details, I know how Nebraska courts read the going-and-coming rule, and I'm ready to take a denied claim to the Workers' Compensation Court instead of accepting a one-line rejection. Injured people I've represented have recovered over $23 million in total, with a top result of $5.4 million. You can read what they say in many five-star reviews, and my firm was voted Best of Omaha for personal injury law in both 2025 and 2026.
If you were hurt on the road for your job, on an errand for your employer, or in the company lot, and someone told you that "doesn't count," get a second opinion from an Omaha work injury lawyer. Phone me at (402) 378-9208, or tell me what happened here. The first conversation costs nothing, and you pay no fee unless I win your case.
Frequently asked questions
- Is my commute covered by workers' comp in Nebraska?
- Here is how the Nebraska Supreme Court stated the going-and-coming rule in Torres v. Aulick Leasing, Inc. (2001): injuries sustained going to and coming from work are not covered "unless it is determined that a distinct causal connection exists between an employer-created condition and the occurrence of the injury." Notice the "unless."
- Am I covered on the employer's premises before or after my shift?
- Coming and going on the employer's premises is treated differently from the public road. In Zoucha, the Court repeated a long-standing Nebraska rule: an employee leaving the employer's premises in the usual and customary way after the work is done is still within the course of employment.
- Is a worker who travels for the job covered for the whole trip?
- Some workers don't commute to a fixed place at all; the road is the workplace. Nebraska calls this the commercial traveler rule. As Torres put it, a commercial traveler is regarded as acting in the course of employment during the entire period of travel on the employer's business.
- What is the special errand exception in Nebraska workers' comp?
- The special errand exception covers the worker who normally has set hours and a set place, but who makes a trip outside them because the employer asked. Torres quotes the leading treatise: the trouble, time, hazard, or urgency of the trip can make it "an integral part of the service itself."
Call Me Today at (402) 378-9208
The consultation is free, and there's no fee unless I win your case.
Call (402) 378-9208
Your Attorney
Frank Younes
Every page on this site is written by Frank Younes, a Nebraska trial attorney with a published record of verdicts and settlements, selection to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100, and a practice that covers every county in Nebraska and Iowa. No case is handed to an associate — the lawyer you read here is the lawyer who works your case.
More about Frank → · Free consultation: (402) 378-9208