The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a trial court's ruling, finding that Liberty Mutual owes pedestrian PIP coverage to an uninsured pedestrian struck by a Lyft driver. The case is Boone v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund/New Jersey Prop. Liab. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2026 N.J. Super. LEXIS 71 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026).
Background
Lamar Boone, an uninsured pedestrian, was struck by a Lyft driver, Jean E. Zamor. Boone did not own a vehicle, nor did he live with a vehicle owner, meaning he had no auto insurance of his own.
At the time of the accident, Zamor was actively logged into the Lyft network and was carrying a passenger. Zamor had an auto insurance policy with Liberty Mutual, but the policy did not include personal injury protection (PIP) coverage for uninsured pedestrians.
Boone made a claim for PIP medical expense benefits, but Liberty Mutual denied the claim. He then sought coverage from the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF). The administrator of the fund, the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (NJPLIGA), also denied the claim.
Boone then initiated a complaint in trial court, seeking PIP medical expense benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Boone, ordering that the policy be reformed to include PIP benefits and requiring Liberty Mutual to provide PIP coverage benefits to Boone.
Superior Court of New Jersey
Liberty Mutual appealed the decision, and the case was brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey. Liberty argued that the state's Transportation Network Companies (TNC) Act, which governs insurance requirements for TNCs and TNC drivers, does not reference the state's No-Fault Act, and thus does not require carrying PIP benefits for pedestrians.
Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a) of the No-Fault Act, the definition of "automobile" excludes autos "used as a public or livery conveyance for passengers."
Under N.J.S.A. 39:5H-2, the TNC Act defines a TNC driver's "personal vehicle" as "a motor vehicle that is used by a TNC driver to provide prearranged rides" and "shall not be considered an automobile as defined in subsection a. of section 2 of P.L. 1972, c.70 (C.39:6A-2) while a TNC driver is providing a prearranged ride."
N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3 requires that "every liability policy issued in this State on a motor vehicle, exclusive of an automobile as defined in [C.39:6A-2]... shall provide personal injury protection coverage benefits... to pedestrians who sustain bodily injury."
The court found that Zamor's personal vehicle is a motor vehicle under the TNC Act and is not considered an "automobile" while providing a prearranged ride, concluding that the vehicle is subject to the requirements of N.J.S.A 17:28-1.3.
Liberty pointed to N.J.S.A 39:5H-26, which states that the TNC Act "expressly provides that TNCs and TNC drivers shall be governed exclusively by [the Act]," arguing that the text exempts it from compliance with N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3.
The court disagreed, stating that the exclusivity language is meant to govern TNCs or TNC drivers, not insurers like Liberty Mutual. The purpose of the statute is to make it so TNC drivers are not required to register their personal vehicles as commercial for-hire vehicles, nor are they required to obtain a license or permit.
Liberty Mutual is an insurer, not a TNC, and is subject to the requirements of the Insurance Code, which requires PIP coverage benefits for pedestrians in all auto policies that include liability coverage for any of its insureds.
The court stated that Liberty Mutual's interpretation would go against the purpose of the No-Fault Act and leave uninsured pedestrians hit by a TNC vehicle with no available recovery. In support, they quoted the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lindstrom v. Hanover Ins. Co., which stated, "this Court has characterized PIP coverage as 'a social necessity' that should be given 'the broadest application consistent with the statutory language.'"
The court affirmed the trial court's orders, ruling that Liberty Mutual was required to provide uninsured pedestrian PIP coverage and that the policy be reformed to include pedestrian PIP coverage.
Editor's Note
Liberty Mutual attempted to argue that the state's TNC Act did not reference the state's No-Fault Act and thus did not require PIP benefits for pedestrians. The court disagreed, finding that the driver's personal vehicle was a "motor vehicle" and not an "automobile" as defined in the No-Fault Act.
As a motor vehicle covered by liability insurance, the Liberty Mutual policy was required to provide uninsured pedestrian PIP benefits. Since the policy omitted coverage that was required to be included, it was ordered to be reformed to include that coverage. Courts will reform policies if they go against the public interest, and as the New Jersey Supreme Court stated, PIP coverage is a "social necessity."
Read More:
Ray Sugrim
Ray Sugrim is an Insurance Editor with FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, a division of National Underwriter Company and Arc Network. Ray is responsible for helping develop and edit content for subscribers. Ray is a St John’s University graduate with a degree in Risk Management & Insurance and is a CPCU candidate.