Free Newsletter
Insurance – Pedestrian – PIP
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 mus[...]
Insurance – PIP – Coordination
Where a jury found that a defendant insurance company violated the personal injury protection statute (G.L.c. 90, §34M) by failing to pay the plaintiff for medical services provided to a policyholder, the verdict should be upheld because the jury could have reasonably found that the insurer failed to properly advise the plaintiff of its obligation to coordinate benefits.
Insurance – PIP – Coordination
Where a defendant insurance company paid only $2,000 of a plaintiff ambulance company’s bill for $2,418.75, a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor should be affirmed because the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the insurer did not meaningfully coordinate benefits as contemplated by the personal injury protection statute, G.L.c. 90, §34M.
Appeals Court to decide if ‘struck’ requires contact in PIP context
The Massachusetts Appeals Court will decide if personal injury protection covers pedestrians injured while avoiding cars without direct impact.
Prejudgment interest based on award minus PIP offset
Appeals Court rules prejudgment interest in car crash case applies only to the verdict amount not covered by personal injury protection benefits.
Damages – Pre-judgment interest – PIP
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.
Insurance – PIP
Where a defendant insurance company was ordered to pay personal injury protection (PIP) payments for the full amount that a plaintiff hospital billed for medical services it rendered, that was error, as the hospital had previously agreed with a third party to accept only 95 percent of its billed charges.
Verdicts & Settlements
- Injury during baby’s adenoidectomy leads to stroke
- Construction worker’s hand caught in cement mixer
- Worker trapped in freezer, dies during steam cleaning
- Pedestrian, 69, hit by motor vehicle while in crosswalk
- Four-vehicle pileup leaves driver with spinal cord injury
- Nursing home staff blamed for kidney-failure death
- Pharmacy’s late delivery blamed for patient’s death
- Man, 25, drowns after swimming lesson at fitness club
Opinion Digests
- Jurisdiction – Forum selection clause – Non-signatory
- Criminal – Responsibility
- Attorneys – Lien
- Landlord and tenant – Default judgment
- Zoning – Constructive grant – Comprehensive permit
- Fraud – False Claims Act – Settlement share
- Civil practice – Discovery – Cybersecurity
