In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haight (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 223, the employee worked for a building subcontractor and was required by his employer to use his own truck to travel to and from the employer's jobsites and its office. The employee was also required to use his own truck to deliver materials and large equipment to the worksites. On the day of the accident, the employee's truck was in the garage for repairs, and he was using the company van to travel to and from various work destinations. At the end of the workday, he stopped first at the company office and then, while driving home, at a grocery store. After leaving the grocery store, the employee was involved in a collision with another vehicle. The employee had planned to use the van the next day to travel to a worksite, and there were materials in the van related to that project. The employer's insurance company denied coverage for the accident, asserting the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment because, prior to the collision, he had stopped to buy groceries. The insurer filed an action for declaratory relief, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the insurer. The Court of Appeal reversed, stating: "A well-known exception to the going-and-coming rule arises where the use of the car gives some incidental benefit to the employer. ... The question is not who owns the vehicle ... , or whether the employee receives reimbursement by the employer for the vehicle ... , or whether the employee performs a personal errand while driving home." (Haight, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 241.) "The evidence is uncontradicted that the employee's use of the company vehicle in his job clearly gave the employer an incidental benefit. The employee was driving a company vehicle with company equipment in the van and returning to his home from engaging in company activity. The employee had duties both in the office and in the field. He was required to use his vehicle to travel to work sites. He delivered materials in his vehicle to the work site. He was required to travel throughout the county and sometimes outside the county. It was an express condition of his employment that the employee use the vehicle in attending to his duties." (Id. at pp. 241-242.) The Court of Appeal observed: "That the accident occurred when the employee was on his way home from work is not determinative of the scope of employment." (Haight, at p. 242.)