It will depend upon state laws and the terms of your PIP policy whether an assault on a driver or passenger which is part of carjacking incident would be covered or not. Normally PIP coverages pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses so even if a carjacking is covered then any bills, whether for physical bodily injuries or mental health, would need to be proven to be necessary to be covered. Mental health is not normally a coverage that most PIP policies cover so those expenses would especially need to be discussed with your insurance carrier.

In many states lawsuits have determined if Personal Injury Protection coverages is required to pay for bodily injuries resulting from a carjacking. For example it has been determined that under New Jersey law, while PIP coverage would provide protection for intentional harm, UM (uninsured motorist) coverage will only provide such coverage if the harm was unintentional from the perspective of the carjacker.

In Oregon courts first found in favor of the insurer in a case where an insured survived, but suffered significant injuries from being shot by the carjacker and sought to collect PIP benefits under his auto insurance policy.

The insurer denied the insured's PIP claims. The trial court found for the insurer, holding that, because the insured's injury occurred from a gunshot that had not directly resulted from the insured's use of the car. The OR Supreme Court though reversed this decision. The insured's side argued successfully that the gunshot injury resulted from the use of his car, because the carjacker effectively took over the use of plaintiff's vehicle by coercion, ordered him to get out, and shot him moments after he left the vehicle. Under these facts, the higher courts concluded that the insured's injury arose as a consequence of the carjacking event that involved the 'use' of the vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff's gunshot injury resulted from the use of a motor vehicle."

In Florida when an insured’s car’s tire blew out, and he was attacked by unknown assailants (carjackers) while changing a tire the court held that his injuries arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle for purposes of PIP coverage, because they were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the use of the car.

The FL PIP state statute requires coverage for injuries or death “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of a motor vehicle. In this state the court recognized that “acts of violence are ageless and foreseeable hazard associated with the use of a vehicle, for once a person sets out in a vehicle, he or she is vulnerable.” The court compares carjacking to the highwaymen of long ago. The court catalogs a number of the risks that, sadly, are foreseeable when we get into our car — from robbery to road rage.

We have read that carjacking in Virginia was not found to constitute “use” of a vehicle under Virginia’s uninsured motorist statute so may not be covered however likely it will be court cases that determine if auto insurance coverages will apply to specific carjacking situations if an insurance company denies claims.

To find out what your state's laws are regarding injuries sustained from a carjacking assault and PIP coverages check with your state's insurance regulator.