313 A.3d 877
N.J.2024Background
- David Goyco was injured in November 2021 when an automobile struck him while he was operating a low-speed electric scooter (LSES) in New Jersey.
- Goyco sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under his automobile insurance policy from Progressive Insurance Company, which denied his claim.
- Progressive denied benefits, reasoning that Goyco was not a "pedestrian" under the No-Fault Act, as an LSES is not an "automobile" nor are its riders pedestrians by statutory definition.
- Goyco challenged this decision, arguing that, after a 2019 statute, LSES operators should qualify as pedestrians for PIP purposes, similar to bicyclists.
- Both the trial court and the Appellate Division ruled against Goyco, finding that LSES riders do not meet the No-Fault Act's definition of pedestrian.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to clarify whether LSES riders are pedestrians entitled to PIP benefits under current law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an LSES operator a "pedestrian" under the No-Fault Act for PIP benefits? | Goyco: LSES riders should qualify as pedestrians, especially since N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) treats LSES like bicycles, and bicyclists are considered pedestrians for PIP. | Progressive: LSES is a motorized vehicle; its definition does not extend from bicycles, and the No-Fault Act's definition specifically excludes vehicles propelled by other than muscular power. | No, an LSES rider is not a pedestrian under the No-Fault Act, as the LSES is a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power and designed for highway use. |
| Does N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) change the No-Fault Act’s scope to cover LSES riders? | Goyco: The 2019 statute signals legislative intent to align LSES with bicycles regarding statutory protections. | Progressive: The statute applies only where appropriate, does not refer to insurance, and the definition of bicycle-pedestrian status does not extend to motorized LSES. | No, the 2019 statute does not affect the pedestrian definition within the No-Fault Act; such policy expansions are a matter for the Legislature. |
| Should insurance policy definitions incorporate those from outside Title 39’s Subtitle 2? | Goyco: Cross-reference to N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 would exclude LSES from "vehicle" under the No-Fault Act. | Progressive: Definitions from outside the No-Fault Act do not apply; the terms must be given their ordinary meanings per legislative instructions. | The No-Fault Act uses its own or ordinary definitions, not those from N.J.S.A. 39:1-1; an LSES fits the ordinary definition of "vehicle." |
| Is public policy advanced by treating LSES riders as pedestrians for PIP? | Goyco: Liberal construction of statute supports broad PIP coverage, including LSES users. | Progressive: Expanding coverage increases premiums, contrary to No-Fault Act’s intent to control insurance costs. | Policy expansion is for the Legislature, not the courts; goal of affordable premiums weighs against extension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunag v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 224 N.J. Super. 753 (App. Div. 1988) (clarified that vehicles propelled by power other than muscular force do not render the operator a "pedestrian" under the No-Fault Act)
- Lane v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 196 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 1984) (held a motor bike is a vehicle designed for highway use and thus the operator is not a pedestrian)
- Darel v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers Ass'n Ins. Co., 114 N.J. 416 (1989) (a bicyclist is considered a pedestrian for No-Fault Act purposes when propelled by muscular power)
- Cooper Hosp. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 249 N.J. 174 (2021) (discussed the dual purposes of the No-Fault Act: prompt medical payment and cost containment)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (reaffirmed statutory interpretation favors plain language unless ambiguous)