Roberge v. Travelers: What Rhode Island Injured Workers Should Know About Driving Personal Vehicles for Work

Rhode Island’s Supreme Court decision in Roberge v. Travelers makes it clear that many employees driving their own cars for work cannot count on their employer’s commercial auto policy for underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. In most cases, the recovery path will run through workers’ compensation plus the employee’s own  auto insurance limits—not the employer’s policy. Employees who regularly drive personal vehicles for work should understand this risk and review their coverage with a qualified attorney and insurance professional.

Important disclaimer

Nothing in this article is legal advice. I am a chiropractor, not an attorney. Injured workers should consult a qualified lawyer about their specific rights, coverage, and recovery options.

The case: Roberge v. Travelers

In May 2026, the Rhode Island Supreme Court decided Roberge v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, a case involving a state employee who was seriously injured while driving her own car for work. She was struck by an underinsured motorist and could not return to work due to her injuries.

The State’s commercial auto policy carried $1 million in liability coverage, but the UM/UIM section was written differently. The policy selected “Owned Autos Only” for UM/UIM coverage, which meant only vehicles owned by the State were treated as “covered autos” for underinsured motorist benefits. Because Ms. Roberge was driving her personal vehicle, the Court ruled that she was not entitled to the State’s UM/UIM coverage—even though she was unquestionably performing her job duties when the crash occurred.

In practical terms, the Court drew a line: being “in the course and scope of employment” does not automatically make an employee a “named insured” for UM/UIM under the employer’s policy. The actual policy language and covered‑auto symbols control.

What happened to the “Martinelli” protection?

Rhode Island practitioners may be familiar with the older Martinelli line of cases, which had sometimes been used to argue for broader protection for employees under an employer’s policy. In Roberge, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed that protection.

The Court indicated that the Martinelli exception survives, if at all, mainly in the context of small, closely held companies where the owner and the entity are effectively the same. For larger employers and government entities,

Roberge makes it clear that the policy language—not a broad “scope of employment” argument—controls who is covered for UM/UIM.

For many injured workers, that means an employer’s commercial auto policy may provide liability protection, but not underinsured motorist benefits when they are in a personal vehicle.

Where workers’ compensation and personal auto coverage fit

From a patient and provider perspective, Roberge reinforces a two‑track framework for injuries that happen while driving for work:

• Workers’ compensation

  • This is usually the primary system for a work‑related injury.

  • It can cover medical treatment and a portion of lost wages when the injury occurs in the course of employment.

  • It is typically the exclusive remedy against the employer itself.

• Personal auto insurance (UM/UIM)

  • This is often the key “second layer” when the at‑fault driver has low limits or is underinsured.

  • It can help address additional damages that workers’ compensation does not cover, such as pain and suffering and full loss of earning capacity.

  • 
    

After Roberge, many employees who drive personal vehicles for work may find that, in an underinsured‑motorist situation, their realistic auto‑insurance recovery is limited to:

• The at‑fault driver’s liability limits, plus

• Their own UM/UIM limits on their personal auto policy.

The employer’s UM/UIM coverage may not apply at all if the policy is written for “Owned Autos Only” or similarly restrictive language.

What this means for employees who drive their own cars for work

For patients who regularly drive their personal vehicles as part of their job—home health workers, state employees, sales reps, and many others—this decision raises some practical risk‑management questions:

• Do they understand that their employer’s commercial auto policy may not protect them with UM/UIM if they are hit by an underinsured driver while using their own vehicle?

• Have they reviewed their personal UM/UIM limits with an insurance professional, given how important that coverage may be after Roberge?

• Are they promptly reporting and pursuing workers’ compensation when the crash is clearly work‑related, instead of assuming the auto claim alone will be enough?

  
  

These are conversations best handled with a qualified attorney and insurance agent, but they affect how patients experience their claims and recoveries.

How we talk to our patients about this (non‑legal) side

In our clinic, when someone is injured in a crash while driving a personal vehicle for work, we focus on the clinical side but also help them understand the types of claims they may need to explore with their legal team:

• We encourage them to report the injury promptly to their employer and pursue a workers’ compensation claim where appropriate.

• We suggest they check their personal auto policy’s UM/UIM limits and discuss those limits with their attorney.

• We encourage them not to assume that their employer’s commercial auto policy will “fill the gap” for UM/UIM, especially where policy language may limit coverage to employer‑owned vehicles.

Again, that is not legal advice—it is about helping patients ask the right questions of the right professionals.

Why objective documentation matters in these cases

In cases where coverage and available insurance dollars may be limited, the quality of medical documentation becomes even more important. Insurers and attorneys need clear, objective evidence to understand the full impact of the injury.

At Cityside Chiropractic, we place a strong emphasis on objective testing and attorney‑ready documentation for auto and work injury patients, including:

• RightEye oculomotor assessment

• BTrackS balance and neurocognitive testing

• PostureRay CRMA for cervical range of motion and ligamentous instability

• CNS Vital Signs neurocognitive screening

• RMSK®‑credentialed musculoskeletal ultrasound

These tools support thorough clinical assessment and help attorneys accurately present the nature and extent of a patient’s injuries—especially important when every dollar of available coverage matters.

If you were injured while driving your own vehicle for work

If you were hurt in Rhode Island while driving your own car for work—especially if the other driver was underinsured—it is important to:

• Get prompt medical evaluation and care

• Notify your employer and ask about a workers’ compensation claim

• Speak with a qualified Rhode Island injury attorney about your coverage, including your personal UM/UIM limits

Our role is to help you document and treat your injuries carefully and objectively so that your legal and insurance team has the information they need.

If you have questions about your injury, your symptoms, or whether your case may benefit from advanced objective testing, you can contact:

Cityside ChiropracticProvidence & Cranston, Rhode IslandPhone: (401) 272‑5710Website: citysidechiropractic.com