INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Bad day for scooter rider
In November 2021, an automobile struck and injured David Goyco while he was operating a Segway Ninebot KickScooter Max in Elizabeth, New Jersey. The KickScooter Max is a low-speed electric scooter (LSES) that has two wheels connected by a floorboard, as well as handlebars, a headlight, brake light, speedometer, and electric motor.
Goyco made a claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under his automobile policy with Progressive Insurance Company. Progressive denied Goyco’s claim. It concluded that coverage was not required under Goyco’s policy because the LSES that Goyco operated at the time of the accident did not meet the definition of an “automobile,” and Goyco could not be considered a “pedestrian.”
The PIP benefits provided that the insured could receive these benefits for injuries sustained in an accident “1. while occupying,
entering into, alighting from, getting on, getting off of, loading, unloading, or using an automobile; or 2. as a pedestrian, caused by an automobile or by an object propelled by or from an automobile.”
The policy defines “automobile” in terms that track a subsection of the state’s no-fault act, and it defines “pedestrian” as “any person who is not occupying a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power and designed primarily for use on highways, rails and tracks.” (emphasis added). That language similarly tracks the no-fault act. The policy does not define “vehicle.”
Goyco filed a verified complaint and an order to show cause, asking the trial court to direct Progressive to pay all reasonable medical expenses incurred to treat his injuries.
He asserted that LSES riders should be deemed “pedestrians” entitled to PIP benefits under the no-fault act in light of the 2019 enactment of a statute that provides that an LSES should be considered equivalent to a bicycle—with bicyclists having been deemed pedestrians under the no-fault act—except in statutory provisions that clearly do not apply to an LSES.
The trial court denied relief to Goyco, and the appellate division affirmed. The court granted Goyco’s petition for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The supreme court affirmed the appellate division’s finding that Goyco was not entitled to PIP benefits.
Goyco v. Progressive Insurance Company—Supreme Court of New Jersey—No. 088497—May 14, 2024.
