New Jersey’s Supreme Court has ruled that a passenger who did not know the vehicle he was in was stolen is not entitled to personal injury protection benefits after an accident.

In a 5-2 decision, the court upheld an exclusion in an insurance policy that denies benefits to someone who “was occupying or operating an automobile without the permission of the owner or other named insured.”

Tyrell Hardy, 14, accepted a ride in a Subaru occupied by Humza Abdul-Matin, 16, and Alquan Edwards, 24, in October 2004, according to court documents. Unbeknownst to Hardy, the Subaru was reported stolen earlier that day.

The Subaru later collided with a gas truck, bursting into flames. Hardy suffered a broken leg and other injuries.

At the time of the accident, Hardy lived with his grandmother, who had auto insurance coverage through Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and she sought personal injury protection for his injuries. The claim was denied as Hardy was riding in a stolen vehicle without the driver’s consent.

In May 2006, Hardy’s grandmother sued Liberty and the case was dismissed by a trial court, but an appellate court ruled that the 14-year-old was entitled to PIP benefits based on “whether he knew he did not have permission from the owner to occupy the vehicle.”
Liberty challenged the appellate court’s ruling and got a rejection of the ruling by the Supreme Court.

“The clear, unambiguous language of the policy exclusion requires that before an insured may recover PIP benefits, the insured must have occupied the covered vehicle with the permission of the owner or named insurer,” Justice John E. Wallace Jr. wrote in the majority opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, two justices claimed that the PIP statute “does not require the exclusion from coverage from coverage of every single citizen who accepts a ride from a friend or relative who later is shown to lack permission from the owner,” according to court records.