Did Massachusetts deprive a Vermont citizen the fundamental right to property without a compelling state interest by refusing to enforce its substantive and procedural laws?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Did Massachusetts deprive a Vermont citizen the fundamental right to property without a compelling state interest by refusing to enforce its substantive and procedural laws where there exist unresolved disputes as to the Massachusetts statute (he plead it requires Massachusetts Personal Injury Protection ((PIP)) on non-resident vehicles which insurers deny) and Vermont contracts (he plead they promise Massachusetts PIP which insurers deny), when the Judiciary, while conceding both of Petitioner's pleas are the law, refused to declare the law; and instead forced an interpretation of disputed law and contracts on him in summary judgments, without declaration of statute or contract, depriving him, and no others similarly situated, of the protections of both law and contracts? 2) Did Massachusetts violate Article IV when it refused to declare whether, under Vermont contract law, there were breaches of Vermont contracts? 3) Is M.G.L. ch. 231A unconstitutional or unconstitutional as exercised? i