KATHLEEN LEGGETTE VS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCECOMPANY (GEICO)(L-1585-14, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), 161 A.3d 769

Kathleen Leggette, a Virginia resident, parked her Virginia-registered Toyota in Princeton, locked it, and while walking as a pedestrian in a crosswalk was struck by a New Jersey-licensed driver.
Leggette incurred approximately $113,825 in medical bills, settled with the tortfeasor, and sued her insurer GEICO for a declaratory judgment seeking PIP benefits under New Jersey’s "Deemer Statute" (N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4).
The Deemer Statute deems out-of-state policies sold by insurers authorized in New Jersey to provide New Jersey PIP coverage "whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured under the policy is used or operated in this State."
Leggette argued that because her vehicle had been brought into New Jersey, GEICO must provide PIP benefits even though she was a pedestrian when injured.
GEICO argued the statute requires a nexus between the insured vehicle and the accident—i.e., the insured automobile must be used or operated at the time of the New Jersey accident to trigger Deemer coverage.
The trial court initially granted Leggette summary judgment but then vacated that order on reconsideration, concluding Deemer coverage requires the vehicle be used or operated at the time of the accident; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Deemer Statute requires the insured vehicle to be "used or operated" at the time of the accident to trigger PIP	Leggette: Deemer is triggered when the insured vehicle enters/travels in NJ; occupancy/use need not be contemporaneous with injury	GEICO: Deemer requires the automobile be used/operated at the time of the NJ accident; a mere prior presence is insufficient	Court: Deemer requires a "substantial nexus" between vehicle use and the accident; no coverage for Leggette as a pedestrian who had ended use of her vehicle

Whitaker v. DeVilla, 147 N.J. 341 (N.J. 1997) (discusses scope and purpose of the Deemer Statute)
Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (N.J. 2009) (explains Deemer Statute effect of deeming out-of-state policies as New Jersey policies)
Lindstrom v. Hanover Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 242 (N.J. 1994) (surveyed substantial-nexus requirement for PIP eligibility)
Negron v. Colonial Penn Ins., 358 N.J. Super. 59 (App. Div. 2003) (applies substantial-nexus analysis to deny PIP where nonoccupant’s actions were not sufficiently entwined with vehicle use)
Vasil v. Zullo, 238 N.J. Super. 572 (App. Div. 1990) (denied PIP to passenger who exited vehicle during an altercation; use had ceased)
Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 507 (N.J. 1960) (interpretive authority on "use" of an automobile for insurance coverage)
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 358 N.J. Super. 555 (App. Div. 2003) (context on Deemer Statute as part of New Jersey’s no-fault plan)