Insurance – Pedestrian – PIP

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff submitted a personal injury protection (PIP) claim to obtain payment for medical services provided to treat a patient who had been injured in a fall while walking backward to get out of the way of an oncoming motor vehicle, the defendant auto insurer’s denial of coverage should be upheld because the commonwealth’s no-fault automobile insurance law provides that a pedestrian must be “struck” by an insured’s motor vehicle to qualify for PIP benefits.

Summary judgment for defendant insurer affirmed.

“The plaintiff, Jordan J. Arbit, doing business as Arbit Chiropractic (Arbit), submitted a personal injury protection (PIP) claim with the defendant, The Standard Fire Insurance Company (Standard Fire), to obtain payment for medical services provided to treat a patient. The patient had been injured in a fall while walking backward to get out of the way of an oncoming motor vehicle. Standard Fire, which insured the driver, denied coverage on the basis that the driver’s motor vehicle did not hit the patient. This lawsuit followed, and a summary judgment entered in favor of Standard Fire. Arbit appealed from the summary judgment to the Appellate Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department (Appellate Division), which affirmed. Arbit now appeals from the decision of the Appellate Division. Because the Commonwealth’s no-fault automobile insurance law provides that a pedestrian must be ‘struck’ by an insured’s motor vehicle to qualify for PIP benefits, see G.L.c. 90, §§34A, 34M, we affirm. …

“The question on appeal is whether a pedestrian who is injured in a fall while trying to get out of the way of an oncoming motor vehicle — but who is not hit by the motor vehicle — qualifies for PIP benefits. …

“… Although it may seem counterintuitive that a pedestrian who jumps out of the way of an oncoming motor vehicle is worse off (legally, not physically) than one who is struck by the vehicle, it is for the Legislature to amend the statute, if it so chooses, to identify any additional circumstances in which a pedestrian should qualify for PIP benefits. Given the clear and unambiguous language of the statute as currently written, we must affirm.”

Arbit v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-092-25) (13 pages) (Grant, J.) The case was heard by Eleanor C. Sinnott, J., on motions for summary judgment. Kevin J. Powers for the plaintiff; Wystan M. Ackerman for the defendant; Thomas R. Murphy and Michael C. Najjar, for Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, amicus curiae, submitted a letter (Docket No. 24-P-1025) (Dec. 18, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.