Damages – Pre-judgment interest – PIP

Listen to this article

Where a jury awarded the plaintiff damages for the harm she suffered as a result of an automobile accident caused by the defendant, the trial judge did not err by ordering calculation of pre-judgment interest only on the portion of the award not offset by personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.

Affirmed.

“The principal issue presented in this appeal is whether, under G.L.c. 231, §6B, prejudgment interest for compensatory damages should be calculated on a jury’s award prior or subsequent to the deduction of ‘personal injury protection’ (PIP) benefits paid to the plaintiff pursuant to Massachusetts’s no-fault automobile insurance scheme. … A jury awarded the plaintiff, Faria J. Simmons, damages for the harm she suffered as a result of an automobile accident caused by the defendant, Nicole M. Chace. The plaintiff appealed and argues that the judge erred by ordering calculation of prejudgment interest only on the portion of the award not offset by PIP benefits. The plaintiff also contends that the judge erred by allowing the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of insurance coverage and by adopting the defendant’s proffered special verdict slip. …

“We conclude that the judge did not err in deducting the amount of the PIP benefits from the jury’s award before ordering the clerk to calculate interest under G.L.c. 231, §6B. General Laws c. 231, §6B, does not apply to the portion of the jury’s award constituting PIP benefits because those benefits are not ‘damages in tort actions’ but a creature of contract between the insured and automobile insurer, ‘granted in lieu of damages otherwise recoverable by the insured person or persons in tort.’ G.L.c. 90, §34M, first par. Furthermore, assessing prejudgment interest on an award for damages before the award is reduced by PIP benefits would run counter to the express provision in G.L.c. 90, §34M, second par., that individuals who would otherwise be responsible for damages are exempt from tort liability to the extent PIP benefits apply.

“Given our conclusion, and because we discern no other errors by the judge, we affirm.”

Simmons v. Chace (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-034-25) (14 pages) (Smyth, J.) The case was tried before Janet L. Sanders, J., in Superior Court. Lawrence P. Almagno Jr. for the plaintiff; Gregory M. Noble for the defendant (Docket No. 23-P-644) (May 16, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.