A Massachusetts Appeals Court recently ruled that a pedestrian cannot claim personal injury protection (PIP) benefits if she is injured while trying to evade an oncoming vehicle, even if she sustains injuries in the process but is not actually struck by the car.
The case hinged on the state’s no-fault automobile insurance law, which requires motor vehicle liability policies to provide PIP benefits and specifies the conditions under which they apply. The court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of The Standard Fire Insurance Co., a Travelers unit, confirming that a pedestrian must be physically “struck” by a covered vehicle to qualify for PIP benefits.
The dispute began when Jordan J. Arbit, operating as Arbit Chiropractic, submitted a PIP claim for medical services provided to a patient. On November 21, 2019, Alfred Bibby was driving into a shopping center while pedestrian Guerda Henry attempted to cross a walkway near the entrance. Startled by Bibby’s approaching car, Henry stepped backward, lost her balance, fell, and injured her neck, left shoulder, lower back, and right thigh. Bibby stopped in time, and the vehicle never made contact with her.
Henry received treatment from Arbit, who filed a PIP claim under Bibby’s insurance. The policy covered pedestrians “if struck by your auto in Massachusetts.” Standard Fire denied the claim, arguing that because Henry was not physically struck, she did not meet the policy’s eligibility criteria.
The case was first heard in Boston municipal court, which granted summary judgment for the insurer. The municipal appellate division upheld the ruling. Arbit then appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Arbit contended that the term “struck” should be interpreted broadly, citing Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., a prior uninsured motorist case in which the court ruled that “hit” did not necessarily require physical contact. He argued that requiring a literal interpretation of “struck” forces pedestrians to risk injury or forgo potential coverage, contrary to the purpose of PIP laws, which are designed to provide fast and reliable compensation to injured individuals.
The insurer countered that the prior case involved different policy language concerning “hit-and-run” incidents and did not alter the plain meaning of “struck” in the current policy. Standard Fire emphasized that the word requires physical contact and that being startled or moving out of the way does not constitute being struck.
On December 18, the three-judge Appeals Court panel upheld the lower courts’ rulings, agreeing that the statutory and policy language unambiguously requires contact for PIP eligibility. While the court noted that “hit and run” may have broader interpretations, the term “struck” should retain its ordinary meaning to avoid unnecessary ambiguity.
The court concluded that any change to allow coverage without physical contact would need to come from the legislature. Interpreting “struck” literally preserves the no-fault law’s goal: providing prompt, inexpensive compensation to those injured in automobile accidents while limiting minor tort claims.