I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance policies
must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of practice, I have
not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use of any particular
mode of transportation, so long as the use of the transportation "arises out
of" and is "in the course of" the employee's employment. I have personally
defended an employer and insurer where the employee died as a result of the
crash of a helicopter he owned and operated. There was no question of
compensability or coverage.

If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
right-- without the appropriate rider.

I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was
with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm
business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to me.
I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat impossible
without flying.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291


There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.