Goyco v. Progressive Ins. Co.
No. 088497, 2024 WL 2140293 (N.J. May 14, 2024)
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that an individual riding a motorized scooter is not a pedestrian within the meaning of New Jersey's No-Fault Act and, therefore, was not entitled to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits after being injured while operating a Low-Speed Electric Scooter (LSES).
This matter arose when the plaintiff, David Goyco (Goyco), was struck by a motor vehicle on Nov. 22, 2021 while operating an LSES. New Jersey law defines an LSES as follows:
“Low-speed electric scooter” means a scooter with a floorboard that can be stood upon by the operator, with handlebars, and an electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion at a maximum speed of less than 19 miles per hour. [N.J.S.A. 39:1-1]
At the time of the accident, Goyco was insured under an auto policy issued by the defendant, Progressive Insurance Company (Progressive). Goyco sought PIP benefits from Progressive on the same day as the accident. Progressive denied the plaintiff's claim by letter dated Dec. 23, 2021 on the basis that the LSES operated by Goyco did not qualify as an “automobile” and Goyco was not a “pedestrian” within the meaning of New Jersey's No-Fault Act.
Goyco then filed a complaint and an order to show cause challenging Progressive's denial and arguing that New Jersey law recognizes bicyclists as pedestrians under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g). The trial court, after hearing oral arguments, denied Goyco's application and dismissed Goyco's complaint, reasoning that the scooter is not a motor vehicle under New Jersey law and that 39:4-14.16(g), which treats LSES the same as bicycles for coverage purposes, is not part of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, the statute that governs No-Fault benefits.
The New Jersey Superior Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's findings, noting that a “pedestrian” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is “any person who is not occupying … a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power.” Because Goyco's LSES was propelled by an electric motor, not "muscular power,” Goyco was not a pedestrian at the time of the accident and, therefore, was not entitled to PIP benefits.
The Supreme Court upheld both the trial court and court of appeals, finding that Goyco was not entitled to PIP benefits because the LSES was not a “vehicle” for purposes of the No-Fault Act and that Goyco was not a “pedestrian” within the meaning of New Jersey's No-Fault Act. The Supreme Court rejected Goyco's reliance on Section 39:4-14.16(g) to establish that his riding the LSES qualifies him as a pedestrian because the LSES was propelled by an electric motor with a rechargeable battery, not “muscular power” and it was equipped with a headlight, brake light, speedometer and other features that underscore the fact that the LSES was designed for use primarily on highways. The supreme court declined to expand the definition of “pedestrian,” opining that it was better left to the legislature, and not the courts, to make such a policy decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.