Comments on: More on Gattuso

By: Jon-Erik G. Storm

Jon-Erik G. Storm — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:15:38 +0000

Michael did put it well. I suppose I was hoping for better guidance.

By: James Peters

James Peters — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:41:24 +0000

I totally agree with you. I don’t see this opinion really changing anything, especially since the employer always has the duty to fully reimburse and to make sure that they do so records have to be kept and the rate has to be analyzed, so I have no idea why and employer would ever use this method.

Michael: Quite succinctly put!

By: kent

kent — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:04:18 +0000

are employers now responsible for replacing employees’ cars stolen on business trips?

formerly, the “mileage is good enough” theory covered the employee’s losses (as well as gas, oil, tires, belts, etc.) if a car was damaged or stolen while the employee was working. now, this opinion suggests that actual expenses of losses incurred while working must be paid, and mileage won’t cut it.

so, how do you “apportion” a loss between business and personal use if the car is stolen on a business trip and at a location where the employee would never be on a personal trip? isn’t it all a “business loss” (as well as the employee’s nice leather jacket and iPhone that were on the front seat) that the employer must actually reimburse, under the Supreme Court’s opinion of 2802?

scary, if so.

By: michael walsh

michael walsh — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:37:10 +0000

At the risk of sounding flippant, I thought the holding could be summarized as follows: Paying employee expenses with lump sum guesstimates is okay as long as you explain your guess and don’t guess incorrectly.