What are the circumstances in which an air conditioning technician was injured in a motor vehicle accident while travelling to work for lunch?

The defendants submit that the circumstances in this case are similar to those in WCAT-2005-01937 (Mondor v. Seifred). In that case the plaintiff was a journeyman air conditioning, heating, and refrigeration technician, and traveled from one location to the next in the course of a work day to service equipment. The panel in that case stated: […] [H]e would not be covered if he was on a distinct departure or substantial deviation from a travel route for personal reasons. Travel for lunch is not usually considered a distinct departure for personal reasons if the employee is a traveling worker because the scope of coverage extends to such personal activities where a travelling worker is involved. If the plaintiff had travelled a substantial distance away from any work related route in order to have his lunch, such a trip might constitute a distinct departure for personal reasons. But, the evidence in this case does not suggest that this occurred. The evidence is that the plaintiff usually ate his lunch on the road. He went home for lunch on the day of the accident only because he was working in the area and could “swing by” once he had finished the job.