A Capehart Scatchard Blog

Tag: PIP benefits

New York Resident Injured As A Pedestrian In A New Jersey Accident Limited To PIP Benefits Under His New York Policy

By on October 16, 2020 in Coverage with 0 Comments

On January 30, 2019, plaintiff, Don Washington, drove his car from his home state of New York to North Bergen, New Jersey.  After shopping and leaving a store, he walked in a crosswalk towards his parked car when he was struck by a vehicle and injured.  The issue in Washington v. Progressive Insurance Company, 2020 […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Plaintiff not Considered Uninsured While Principally Garaging His Motor Vehicle in NJ but Insuring the Vehicle in His Home State of Louisiana

By on September 8, 2017 in Coverage with 0 Comments

In a novel decision, Ledet v. Oller, No. HUD L-2772-16  (Law Div. Aug. 28, 2017),  the court was asked to decide if the plaintiff was considered to be “culpably uninsured” if his motor vehicle was principally garaged in New Jersey while he attended graduate school but insured and registered in his home state of Louisiana. […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Out-of-State Pedestrian Injured in New Jersey Not Entitled to PIP Benefits Under Deemer Statute

By on June 23, 2017 in Litigation with 0 Comments

Plaintiff, Kathleen Leggette, a Virginia resident, was visiting her daughter at Princeton University and, while crossing the street, she was struck by a New Jersey driver. She was insured by Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) and claimed that GEICO should provide personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage to pay for her bills under the Deemer Statute. […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Plaintiff Barred from Collecting PIP Benefits Due to the Ownership of Uninsured Vehicle

By on September 30, 2016 in Coverage, Uncategorized with 0 Comments

Plaintiff, Vidal Padilla, was involved in a 2014 accident while operating his nephew’s car. He submitted a PIP application for his injuries to defendant Personal Service Insurance Company, which insured his nephew’s vehicle. The defendant insurance company contended that the plaintiff was barred from obtaining PIP benefits due to his ownership of an uninsured motor […]

Share

Continue Reading »

Top