Holt v. Lester

This matter came before the Appellate Division on the defendants’ appeal of the trial judge’s denial of their motion to alter and amend the judgment. The defendants are aggrieved by the judge’s failure to reduce the plaintiff’s recovery by the “Personal Injury Protection” (PIP) benefits paid to the plaintiff in accordance with G.L.c. 90, §34M. They request that we find that prejudicial error occurred and that the award be reduced to the extent of PIP benefits paid. We find that the trial judge should have allowed the motion and determine the extent, if any, that PIP benefits should be applied…