This story is reprinted with permissionfrom FC&&S Legal, the industry'sonly comprehensive digital resource designed for insurancecoverage law professionals. Visit the website tosubscribe.

A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that a woman struck by acar after parking her insured vehicle was not entitled to personalinjury protection (PIP) benefits because her vehicle was not being“used or operated” at the time she was injured.

Related: Location matters: Insurance award in auto casejumps from $75K to $2 million

While in a crosswalk, struck by a car and injured

Kathleen Leggette, a Virginia resident, said that she drove herVirginia-registered 2005 Toyota Sequoia, insured by GovernmentEmployees Insurance Company (Geico), from Virginia to PrincetonUniversity to visit her daughter, a student. Leggette said that sheparked her vehicle in a Princeton University parking lot and beganwalking toward her daughter's dormitory.

While in a crosswalk on Edwards Place, Leggette said, she wasstruck by an automobile and injured.

Leggette sued the driver of the auto, and subsequently settledher claims. She then initiated a declaratory judgment actionagainst Geico for PIP benefits. Leggette alleged that Geico, whichwas authorized to conduct business in New Jersey, was legallyobligated by New Jersey law to provide minimum standard automobileinsurance policy PIP benefits, covering injuries suffered when herout-of-state-insured vehicle was used in New Jersey.

PIP coverage not triggered

Geico maintained that Leggette, as a pedestrian, was not usingor operating her vehicle at the time of the accident, so coveragehad not been triggered.

The trial court concluded that Leggette was not entitled to PIPbenefits because she had not been using or operating her vehicle atthe time of the accident.

She appealed.

New Jersey law

New Jersey law provides:

Any insurer authorized to transact or transacting automobile ormotor vehicle insurance business in this State … shall include ineach policy coverage to satisfy at least the liability insurancerequirements of … personal injury protection benefits coveragepursuant to … [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] … whenever the automobile or motorvehicle insured under the policy is used or operated in thisState.

N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.

Appellate Court's decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court ruled that Leggette was notentitled to recover PIP benefits because she had been injured“while a pedestrian.”

Related: Road rash: Why personal auto is a bit of awreck

The appellate court noted that Leggette had parked her car,locked the doors, walked away, exited the parking lot, and wascrossing a street when she was struck by a vehicle. At the time shesustained her injuries, the appellate court ruled, “her use of hervehicle had ended.”

Negligient act not related to use of vehicle

The pedestrian accident, the appellate court declared, was “nota consequence of [Ms. Leggette's] use of her automobile.” Simplyput, the appellate court concluded, the allegedly negligent actthat caused Ms. Leggette's injury “was not related to the use ofher vehicle in New Jersey” and she was not entitled to PIPbenefits.

The case is Leggette v. Government Employees Ins. Co.,No. A-1911-15T3 (N.J. Ct.App. May 30, 2017).

Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the directorof FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the InsuranceCoverage Law Report, and the founder and president of MeyerowitzCommunications Inc. Email him at [email protected].