Pedestrian Denied PIP Benefits After Dodging Car That Never Made Contact

In Massachusetts, a pedestrian is not entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits if injured while attempting to avoid an oncoming vehicle, even if they were not physically struck. This ruling comes from a state Appeals Court, which clarified the stipulations of the state’s no-fault automobile insurance law.

The case in question involved a claim submitted by Jordan J. Arbit, operating as Arbit Chiropractic, seeking PIP benefits from The Standard Fire Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Travelers. The claim arose after an incident on November 21, 2019, when Alfred Bibby was turning into a shopping center. Guerda Henry, a pedestrian, was crossing a walkway near the entrance when she became startled by Bibby’s approaching vehicle. In her attempt to evade the car, she ran backward, fell, and sustained injuries.

Henry suffered injuries to her neck, left shoulder, lower back, and right thigh, for which she received medical treatment from Arbit. Bibby’s insurance policy included PIP provisions that specified coverage for pedestrians “if struck by your auto in Massachusetts.” However, Standard Fire denied the claim, asserting that Henry was not physically hit by Bibby’s vehicle.

The legal battle began in a Boston municipal court, which ruled in favor of Standard Fire. Arbit subsequently appealed to the appellate division of the Boston Municipal Court, which upheld the initial ruling. The case then moved to the state appeals court.

In its defense, Arbit referenced a previous ruling by the state’s high court in Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., where it was determined that the term “hit” does not necessitate physical contact. Arbit argued that the same should apply to the term “struck” in this context. He contended that requiring physical contact would force pedestrians to choose between risking severe injuries or losing coverage by attempting to avoid an accident.

Arbit advocated for a broader interpretation of the statute, emphasizing that public policy should favor comprehensive PIP coverage rather than rigid denials based on literal interpretations. He argued that the term “struck” should be understood as synonymous with “injured.”

However, Standard Fire and the Municipal Appellate Division dismissed Arbit’s arguments, noting that the cases he cited pertained to different terms and contexts. They emphasized that the language of the auto policy directly reflects the statute, asserting that being frightened by an approaching vehicle does not equate to being “struck” by it. They maintained that the interpretation of “strike” or “struck” should align with its ordinary meaning: to come into contact or collision.

On December 18, a three-judge panel from the state appeals court affirmed the previous rulings, concluding that the plain meaning of “struck” necessitates physical contact. Therefore, to qualify for PIP benefits, a pedestrian must indeed be “struck” by an insured vehicle.

The court acknowledged that while the Surrey ruling suggested a broader interpretation of “hit and run,” it did not extend to the term “struck.” They emphasized the importance of adhering to the statute’s clear language, stating that any changes to the law should be the responsibility of state lawmakers. The court reiterated that the no-fault automobile insurance law aims to provide a swift and cost-effective means of compensating individuals injured in automobile accidents, thereby reducing the number of minor tort cases.

Topics
Auto

In Massachusetts, a pedestrian is not entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits if injured while attempting to avoid an oncoming vehicle, even if they were not physically struck. This ruling comes from a state Appeals Court, which clarified the stipulations of the state’s no-fault automobile insurance law.

The case in question involved a claim submitted by Jordan J. Arbit, operating as Arbit Chiropractic, seeking PIP benefits from The Standard Fire Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Travelers. The claim arose after an incident on November 21, 2019, when Alfred Bibby was turning into a shopping center. Guerda Henry, a pedestrian, was crossing a walkway near the entrance when she became startled by Bibby’s approaching vehicle. In her attempt to evade the car, she ran backward, fell, and sustained injuries.

Henry suffered injuries to her neck, left shoulder, lower back, and right thigh, for which she received medical treatment from Arbit. Bibby’s insurance policy included PIP provisions that specified coverage for pedestrians “if struck by your auto in Massachusetts.” However, Standard Fire denied the claim, asserting that Henry was not physically hit by Bibby’s vehicle.

The legal battle began in a Boston municipal court, which ruled in favor of Standard Fire. Arbit subsequently appealed to the appellate division of the Boston Municipal Court, which upheld the initial ruling. The case then moved to the state appeals court.

In its defense, Arbit referenced a previous ruling by the state’s high court in Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., where it was determined that the term “hit” does not necessitate physical contact. Arbit argued that the same should apply to the term “struck” in this context. He contended that requiring physical contact would force pedestrians to choose between risking severe injuries or losing coverage by attempting to avoid an accident.

Arbit advocated for a broader interpretation of the statute, emphasizing that public policy should favor comprehensive PIP coverage rather than rigid denials based on literal interpretations. He argued that the term “struck” should be understood as synonymous with “injured.”

However, Standard Fire and the Municipal Appellate Division dismissed Arbit’s arguments, noting that the cases he cited pertained to different terms and contexts. They emphasized that the language of the auto policy directly reflects the statute, asserting that being frightened by an approaching vehicle does not equate to being “struck” by it. They maintained that the interpretation of “strike” or “struck” should align with its ordinary meaning: to come into contact or collision.

On December 18, a three-judge panel from the state appeals court affirmed the previous rulings, concluding that the plain meaning of “struck” necessitates physical contact. Therefore, to qualify for PIP benefits, a pedestrian must indeed be “struck” by an insured vehicle.

The court acknowledged that while the Surrey ruling suggested a broader interpretation of “hit and run,” it did not extend to the term “struck.” They emphasized the importance of adhering to the statute’s clear language, stating that any changes to the law should be the responsibility of state lawmakers. The court reiterated that the no-fault automobile insurance law aims to provide a swift and cost-effective means of compensating individuals injured in automobile accidents, thereby reducing the number of minor tort cases.

Topics
Auto