The short answer

Motorcyclists in New York are excluded from No-Fault PIP under Insurance Law §5103(a)(1). That has two consequences — one bad, one surprisingly good. The bad: a motorcyclist can’t collect the $50,000 in Personal Injury Protection benefits that every car-occupant gets from their own auto policy. The good: because No-Fault doesn’t apply, the §5102(d) serious-injury threshold doesn’t apply either — meaning a motorcyclist can sue the at-fault driver for all damages, including pain and suffering for soft-tissue injuries that would be barred in a car case.

Why motorcyclists were excluded

New York’s No-Fault law, enacted in 1973, was designed for four-wheeled motor vehicles. The legislature concluded that the actuarial profile of motorcycles — significantly higher injury rates and severity per crash — would have distorted the No-Fault premium structure if motorcycle riders had been included. The exclusion was a calculated political and actuarial compromise: motorcyclists keep their full tort rights, but they don’t share in the No-Fault pool.

New York’s highest court has consistently upheld the exclusion, confirming that motorcyclists fall outside the No-Fault definitional scheme. The exclusion has been re-confirmed in regulatory commentary from the Department of Financial Services.

What the exclusion actually means in practice

1. No PIP from your own policy

If you’re injured on your motorcycle, your motorcycle insurance policy will not include the $50,000 PIP benefits package that’s automatically on every auto policy. There’s no NF-2 to file, no 30-day No-Fault application deadline, and no automatic medical coverage.

This is the medical-coverage gap. A seriously injured motorcyclist’s bills go to their health insurer, with whatever deductible, copay, and out-of-pocket maximum that policy carries. For uninsured riders, this is a real problem — though it can be addressed through optional medical-payments (“med-pay”) coverage available on most motorcycle policies, or by aggressive parallel pursuit of the at-fault driver’s bodily-injury liability coverage.

2. No §5102(d) serious-injury threshold

Here’s the upside. Because No-Fault doesn’t apply, the gating mechanism that No-Fault carries with it — the §5102(d) serious-injury threshold — also doesn’t apply to motorcyclists. A motorcyclist suing the at-fault driver doesn’t have to prove a fracture, a permanent loss of use, or any of the other categories. Any compensable injury is enough.

Practically, this means a motorcyclist with a soft-tissue injury — a strain, a sprain, ongoing back pain — has a viable pain-and-suffering claim where a car occupant with the same injury would not. (For a deeper walkthrough of §5102(d), see our serious injury threshold explainer.)

3. Full tort recovery from the at-fault driver

The motorcyclist sues the at-fault driver in the regular tort system. The driver’s bodily-injury liability coverage pays. There is no $50,000 PIP setoff because no PIP was paid. The plaintiff can recover medical bills, lost earnings, future medical care, future earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of consortium — the full package of tort damages, unrestricted by any No-Fault offset.

This is one of the rare areas where New York personal injury law is more plaintiff-favorable than most states.

Optional coverages riders should buy

Motorcycle riders can plug the medical-coverage gap by purchasing optional coverages on their motorcycle policy:

  • Med-pay — medical payments coverage, typically available in increments of $5,000, $10,000, or $25,000. Pays medical bills regardless of fault. The closest analog to PIP for motorcyclists.
  • Uninsured Motorist (UM) / Underinsured Motorist (UIM) — pays when the at-fault driver is uninsured or has insufficient bodily-injury limits. New York requires UM coverage matching the policy’s liability limits; UIM is optional but inexpensive.
  • Supplementary Underinsured Motorist (SUM) — a New York-specific add-on that extends UM/UIM coverage limits to fill the gap when the at-fault driver’s policy is exhausted.

These coverages can be the difference between a manageable medical bill profile and financial catastrophe after a serious crash. Riders should review their policies and ensure med-pay and SUM are stacked appropriately.

The helmet-law issue

New York requires helmet use under VTL §381. Failure to wear a helmet does not bar recovery, but it can reduce damages for specific head, neck, and facial injuries on a “failure-to-mitigate” theory. For all other injuries — fractures, internal damage, road rash, lower-body injuries — helmet status is legally irrelevant.

Helmet-law arguments are best treated as a damages issue, not a liability bar. The plaintiff who didn’t wear a helmet can still win on liability and recover for non-head injuries fully. The carrier’s argument that “he wasn’t wearing a helmet” should not deter a viable case.

Countering insurer bias

Motorcycle cases face a uniquely hostile claims environment. Adjusters and jurors carry anti-motorcycle bias, and defense counsel will lean hard on themes of “recklessness,” “lane-splitting” (illegal in NY), “speeding,” “should have known the risk.” Countering these requires:

  • Helmet and gear preservation — broken or scratched helmets are critical impact-direction evidence. Don’t discard.
  • Bike preservation — the bike itself is evidence. Don’t have it repaired or junked until counsel inspects.
  • Surveillance and traffic-cam footage — pulled within 72 hours before retention cycles delete it.
  • Witness statements — taken early, while memory is fresh and before the defense reaches them.
  • Accident reconstruction — an expert who can rebut the “reckless rider” theory with physics and crash data.
  • Jury voir dire — the most important moment in a motorcycle case. Identifying and challenging biased jurors is half the trial.

When motorcyclists CAN access No-Fault

A motorcyclist riding their own bike is excluded from No-Fault PIP. But two exceptions:

  1. Pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle. If a motorcyclist is not on their motorcycle at the time of the crash — say, the rider is standing next to it when hit by a car — they may qualify for pedestrian PIP under §5103(a) from the at-fault vehicle’s policy.
  2. Passenger on a motorcycle. Passengers are also excluded from No-Fault while on the motorcycle, but the at-fault driver’s bodily-injury coverage still applies.

These exceptions are narrow and fact-specific. The general rule remains: motorcyclist on motorcycle = no PIP.

How the exclusion affects MVAIC and UM claims

The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) is a state fund that pays when the at-fault driver is unidentified (hit-and-run) or uninsured. Motorcyclists qualify for MVAIC bodily-injury coverage just as car occupants do — the §5103(a)(1) exclusion is from No-Fault PIP, not from the MVAIC bodily-injury fund. MVAIC paperwork must be submitted within 90 days of the accident.

Similarly, a motorcyclist’s own UM/UIM coverage (if carried) applies when the at-fault driver is uninsured. The exclusion doesn’t bar UM coverage; it only bars first-party PIP.

The strategic takeaway

Motorcycle cases sit in an unusual legal posture in New York: no PIP coming in, but no threshold barrier going out. For most riders with non-trivial injuries, the §5103(a)(1) exclusion is a better position than full No-Fault inclusion would be — the full tort claim is more valuable than the $50,000 PIP cap. The plaintiff’s lawyer’s job is to build that full tort case while filling the medical-coverage gap through health insurance, med-pay, and ultimately the at-fault driver’s bodily-injury policy.

Practice areas that interact with this rule

  • Motorcycle accidents — the primary application.
  • Car accidents — for comparison; the §5102(d) threshold applies fully.
  • Wrongful death from a fatal motorcycle crash — EPTL §5-4.1 applies, plus the regular tort claim against the at-fault driver. (Death itself clears the threshold, even if it didn’t already not-apply.)