Plaintiff, Shani Harrell, made a claim against her automobile insurance company, Progressive Garden State Insurance Company (“Progressive”), for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits when she suffered severe burns to her body after a restaurant employee spilled a hot beverage on her at a Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through. She applied to Progressive for PIP benefits under her policy, which Progressive denied. The issue in Harrell v. Mody Management, LLC d/b/a Dunkin’ Grand Group, Inc., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2579 (App. Div. Oct. 23, 2024) was whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits for her injuries. (PIP benefits can include payment of medical bills, wage loss, and essential service benefits.)
At the trial court level, Progressive filed for summary judgment on the coverage issue. The trial court granted summary judgment for Progressive, ruling that plaintiff was not operating her vehicle at the time she was injured and that there was no causal relationship between her use of the vehicle and her injuries. Hence, the judge found there was no coverage under her policy for PIP benefits.
This decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed.
The Appellate Division noted that the facts showed that plaintiff was stopped in the drive-through while purchasing hot tea. When the tea was passed to her through her window, the beverage cup and its top became dislodged, and the contents spilled into the driver’s compartment of the car onto plaintiff. The hot tea flowed under her lap between her legs and onto the seat beneath her, burning her.
She subsequently filed a claim for PIP benefits pursuant to her auto insurance policy. According to her policy, PIP benefits would be paid “because of bodily injury caused by an accident and sustained by an injured person while occupying, entering into, alighting from, getting on, getting off of, loading, unloading, or using an automobile . . .” Progressive had argued that there was no connection between the injuries claimed and her automobile. Further, it argued that her injuries were not caused by the result of occupying, entering into, alighting from or using an automobile.
The trial court had agreed that there was no nexus between the use of the automobile and her injuries. The Appellate Division, however, disagreed with that analysis. It noted that the question required the court to consider whether a substantial nexus existed between the accident plaintiff suffered and the use of her car.
The Court noted that she was injured when hot tea was spilled and burned her as it was passed into her car. She was obviously occupying her vehicle and sitting in the driver’s seat at the time she was injured. She was clearly using her vehicle “to acquire her hot beverage from a business that expressly offers customers the option to pick up their food and drinks while remaining in their cars.”
Thus, the Court found that there was a substantial nexus between the burn incident and her vehicle use. Therefore, the Appellate Division concluded that plaintiff was covered under her insurance policy’s PIP terms. It reversed the order granting defendant summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court.
