In a ruling that is expected to have long range ramifications statewide, the New Jersey Appellate Division has just ruled that auto insurance companies are not required to provide personal injury protection coverage for motor vehicle crashes involving low-speed electric scooters.
On November 22, 2021, David Goyco was operating a Segway Ninebot KickScooter Max (has a maximum speed of 15.5 miles per hour) when he was struck by a vehicle. As a result of the crash, Goyco sustained injuries and incurred medical expenses for his treatments.
At the time of the accident, Goyco was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Insurance Company. The policy provided No-Fault Benefits Coverage ("NFBC"), which provides personal injury protection ("PIP") coverage, regardless of fault.
This coverage was provided pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 which requires every standard automobile liability insurance policy to contain PIP benefits "for the payment of benefits without regard to negligence, liability or fault of any kind, to the named insured and members of his family residing in his household who sustain bodily injury as a result of an accident while occupying, entering into, alighting from or using an automobile, or as a pedestrian, caused by an automobile."
Goyco filed a claim with Progressive for PIP
benefits.
Progressive denied the claim,
stating:
Unfortunately, you are ineligible for P.I.P. benefits
under this policy.
New Jersey No-Fault benefits are only available if the
accident involves a qualifying automobile. The
Segway Ninebot Scooter you were occupying at the
time of the accident does not meet the definition of a
qualifying automobile pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-
2(a) of the New Jersey Auto Insurance Law. Therefore,
New Jersey No-Fault benefits are denied.
Furthermore, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h) of the New Jersey Auto Insurance Law, the Segway Ninebot Scooter you were occupying at the time of the accident disqualifies you from meeting the definition of a pedestrian as "pedestrian" is defined as "any person who is not occupying, entering into, or alighting from a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power and designed primarily for use on highways, rails and tracks."
Goyco filed a lawsuit in Superior Court challenging Progressive's denial of his claim, arguing that Darel v. Pennsylvania Mfgrs. Ass’n Ins. Co., established that New Jersey law does recognize bicyclists as pedestrians for purpose of no-fault coverage, and by extension, an low-speed electric scooters ("LSES") should be considered the equivalent of a bicycle pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g), which provides: all statutes... rules, and regulations applicable to bicycles, . . . shall apply to low-speed electric bicycles and LSES, except those provisions which by their very nature may have no application to low-speed electric bicycles or low-speed electric scooters.
Superior Court Judge John G. Hudak dismissed the complaint, saying:
Here, plaintiff was operating a scooter powered by
motor at the time of the incident. As the scooter is
clearly not considered a motor vehicle, neither in
statute nor in the insurance policy, it must be
determined if plaintiff would be considered a
pedestrian.
Plaintiff asserts that under N.J.S.A. 39:4- 14.16(g), "all statutes... rules and regulations applicable to bicycles... shall apply to low-speed electric bicycles and low-speed electric scooters." This reasoning is misplaced, however, as that Statue is not a part of the No-Fault statute and is not controlling over the New Jersey Auto Insurance Law.
Further, the No-Fault Statute contains zero reference to "bicycles," but rather
defines what constitutes a "Pedestrian" for purposes of
the No-Fault Statute.
The plain language and nature of the definition of a
"pedestrian" in accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4
clearly has no application to an LSES either. Further, this statute also fails to even reference "bicycles." These uncontroverted facts clearly exclude
Plaintiff from the definition of a "pedestrian" under
NJ.S.A. 39:6A-2(h) which is "any
person who is not occupying, entering into, or alighting
from a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power
and designed primarily for use on highways, rails and
tracks." Muscular power being the operative phrase in
this statute. The plain meaning of the statute leads
this court to find that the LSES does not fall under
the statute allowing for PIP coverage. The LSES was
not muscular powered thus does not meet the
requirements of the statute. If the Legislature intended
to amend the statute to include low-powered bicycles and scooters they would have done so. Therefore,
Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of PIP benefits under since he does not qualify under any
of the categories of coverage.
Appellate Division Judges Gooden Brown and Mitterhoff have now affirmed this decision agreeing with the insurance company.
The judges noted that N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 expressly defines an LSES - in part - as having "an electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion."
As an LSES is a vehicle propelled by other than muscular
power, it fails to meet N.J.S.A. 39:6A-
2(h)'s definition of "pedestrian" which is "any person who is not occupying, entering
into, or alighting from a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power...
"As Judge Hudak found, the definition of pedestrian under N.J.S.A. 30A:6-4 is incompatible with the definition of an LSES and, therefore, N.J.S.A. 39:4- 14.16(g), by its terms, has no application here," Judges Gooden Brown and Mitterhoff wrote.
The Appellate judges were also not persuaded that an LSES operator can be equated to a bicyclist, noting that the statute's exception actually defeats this argument:
"All statutes . . . rules and regulations applicable to
bicycles. . . shall apply to an LSES except those
provisions which by their very nature may have no
application to . . . an LSES."
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
2 comments:
I was going to start riding to yeshivh with one of these in order to avoid all that traffic and coming late to kollel and getting deducted for lateness. But now its a shaalah of pikuach nefesh especially if I wo't get paid if someone hit me.
So we are back to square one of how to get to yeshivah on tome.
This ruling by the New Jersey Appellate Division has significant implications for individuals using low-speed electric scooters. The decision states that auto insurance companies are not required to provide personal injury protection coverage for motor vehicle crashes involving such scooters. This means that riders of low-speed electric scooters may not have the same level of coverage and protection in case of accidents compared to traditional motor vehicles. The case highlights the importance of understanding the specific terms and definitions in insurance policies, as well as the relevant statutes that govern coverage. While the plaintiff argued that low-speed electric scooters should be considered equivalent to bicycles for insurance coverage purposes, the court found that the statute's definition of a "pedestrian" did not include operators of such scooters.
Post a Comment