“Full Tort” or “Limited Tort” The Auto Insurance Dilemma

We handle many automobile accident injury cases and recent changes in the insurance laws are catching some drivers by surprise.

The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law establishes two basic choices of automobile insurance coverage, commonly known as the “Full Tort” option and the “Limited Tort” option.

The Full Tort option allows an injured party to recover medical expenses, out-of-pocket expenses and compensation for non-monetary damages (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of life’s pleasures) arising out of injuries caused by other drivers. Generally, Full Tort is much the way things were before the Legislature created the Limited Tort option in 1990.

In contrast, the Limited Tort option allows for recovery of medical and out-of-pocket expenses, but does not allow recovery for non-monetary damages, unless the injuries sustained are “serious” injuries. If you are not seriously injured, you cannot recover for pain and suffering, often the most significant part of a damage award or settlement. In return for giving up the right to recover damages for pain and suffering, your annual insurance premium is reduced by approximately 12% if you select the Limited Tort option.

So what is a “serious injury”? Courts have wrestled with the meaning of this concept and whether it is to be determined by a judge or a jury. Presently, “serious injury” requires a serious impairment of a bodily function. Four factors to be considered are the extent of the impairment; the particular bodily function impaired; the length of time the impairment lasted; and the treatment required to correct the impairment. In most cases, the determination whether the insured suffered a serious impairment of a body function will be made by a judge. So far, the reported cases suggest that the serious injury threshold is not easily reached. In other words, injuries must be very serious to get by the Limited Tort barrier.

The selection of the “Full Tort” option or “Limited Tort” option by the named insured applies to all other persons insured under the policy (the named insured’s spouse, relative, or a minor in the named insured’s custody, who is residing in the named insured’s household.)

Whether to select the Full Tort option or the Limited Tort option is no small decision. We have already witnessed cases where a Limited Tort election has prevented recovery for real injuries not deemed “serious” enough under the new law. Injured drivers generally express regret and often surprise when they learn that their selection of the Limited Tort option prevents any recovery beyond medical bills and out-of-pocket losses. In exchange for modest savings, they give up the ability to recover thousands in pain and suffering reimbursement.

Because pain and suffering awards can often outstrip medical expenses, sometimes by as much as tenfold, you are giving up a potentially valuable right when you choose Limited Tort coverage. A personal injury recovery of $10,000 under Limited Tort principles might well be $50,000 or more under the Full Tort election. The trade-off in reduced insurance expense may not be worth it. This becomes even more apparent as the severity of your injury increases. Imagine receiving no compensation for an extended period of pain and suffering following a major auto accident.

Which tort option you select should take into account such factors as your age, your family situation, whether you drive for personal or work purposes, your economic circumstances, and other factors. If you are unsure which option is better for you, you may wish to discuss it with us. Your decision might have a material affect on your recovery if you should have the misfortune of an accident.
 
– John Butera

Posted in Vehicle  |  Leave a comment

Leave a thought...