An auto insurer is not immune from liability for the negligent driving of a police officer policyholder who injured another officer during a training day, Massachusetts’ high court ruled Monday.

While the injured officer was on paid worktime at the time of the incident, other factors, including the other officer’s conduct, mean that the liability for the injuries is not confined to the workers comp system, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Berry v. Commerce Insurance Co., upholding a lower court decision.

In June 2017, officers of the Raynham, Massachusetts, police department attended a paid, eight-hour mandatory firearms training held on town-owned property, which included a paid lunch break.

Upon returning to the range from lunch, one of the training officers, Shawn Sheehan, struck and seriously injured a fellow officer, who was sitting at a picnic table undergoing training at the time. Mr. Sheehan was driving his personal vehicle, which was insured by Commerce Insurance, a U.S. unit of Spanish insurer Mapfre, according to court documents.

Mr. Sheehan testified that, as he pulled into the range, he drove “faster than [he] should have,” coming in “a little hot, spinning the rear tires.” He said he “stopped and then sped up, spinning rocks or gravel,” before applying the brakes again, causing the truck to slide and strike Russell Berry pinning his leg between the truck and the table where he was sitting.

For his misconduct, Mr. Sheehan was suspended for five days without pay. Mr. Berry suffered severe injuries to his leg, incurring medical bills of more than $130,000, and received leave with pay under the Massachusetts workers comp statute, according to court documents.

Mr. Berry submitted a demand letter to Commerce, claiming the automobile insurer was responsible for payments to cover his damages. Commerce denied coverage on the basis that Mr. Sheehan was a public employee who had been acting “within the scope of his . . . employment” at the time of the accident and therefore was immune from tort liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.

In its ruling, the superior court stated that “not all tortious conduct committed by an employee in connection with his or her work is within the scope of that employee’s employment.”

According to the high court ruling, courts consider three factors in determining whether an incident falls within the scope of employment: whether the conduct is of the kind the employee is hired to perform; whether it occurs within authorized time and space limits; and whether it is at least in part motivated to serve the employer.

The court ruled that only the time and space limits factor favored the insurer.

Mr. Sheehan “was not acting within the scope of his employment,” documents state, noting “his unsafe driving was not motivated, even in part, by a purpose to serve his employer,” nor “furthered the interests of the town.”

The court determined Mr. Sheehan’s misconduct had no employment-based purpose, “taking what otherwise might have been a close case and firmly placing it outside the realm of the immunity of the act.”

Mapfre could not immediately be reached for comment.