Several years ago the Pennsylvania Legislature amended the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to provide drivers with the choice of full or limited tort options in their automobile insurance coverage. Things haven’t been quite the same since.
Full tort coverage is pretty much what we had prior to the creation of the limited tort option. Under full tort, a driver or members of the driver’s household maintain an unrestricted right to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by another driver arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Full tort coverage allows recovery of medical and out-of-pocket expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages. Recovery under full tort does not depend on the seriousness of the injury sustained.
Under the limited tort option, the insured’s right to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers is severely limited. While medical and other out-of-pocket expenses can be recovered, compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages may not be sought unless the injuries sustained constitute serious injury as defined by law.
The limited tort concept has its roots in so-called insurance reform efforts backed by the automobile and casualty insurance lobby. In a nutshell, if you select limited tort, you receive a slightly reduced premium in exchange for giving up the right to sue for pain and suffering and other non-economic damages. Not surprisingly, such damages usually constitute a substantial part of a typical insurance claim.
The difficulty with the limited tort option is the serious injury threshold which must be exceeded before suit can be brought for pain and suffering. In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that a herniated disc coupled with severe pain in the neck and numbness in the toes did not constitute serious injury within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Anyone who has ever suffered a herniated disc with these symptoms (me included!) might feel quite the contrary.
Given the uncertainty presented by the limited tort option, as well as the modest value of the potential savings, we continue to believe that full tort coverage is the best choice for most motorists. Saving a few dollars by choosing limited tort coverage can be a short-sighted approach and can have disastrous consequences in the event of an accident. In our last issue, we explored other ways to reduce auto insurance costs which do not impair the underlying level of coverage. Limited tort is not on our list of recommended alternatives.
If you ever have a question in this area, feel free to give us a call.
Full tort coverage is pretty much what we had prior to the creation of the limited tort option. Under full tort, a driver or members of the driver’s household maintain an unrestricted right to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by another driver arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Full tort coverage allows recovery of medical and out-of-pocket expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages. Recovery under full tort does not depend on the seriousness of the injury sustained.
Under the limited tort option, the insured’s right to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers is severely limited. While medical and other out-of-pocket expenses can be recovered, compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages may not be sought unless the injuries sustained constitute serious injury as defined by law.
The limited tort concept has its roots in so-called insurance reform efforts backed by the automobile and casualty insurance lobby. In a nutshell, if you select limited tort, you receive a slightly reduced premium in exchange for giving up the right to sue for pain and suffering and other non-economic damages. Not surprisingly, such damages usually constitute a substantial part of a typical insurance claim.
The difficulty with the limited tort option is the serious injury threshold which must be exceeded before suit can be brought for pain and suffering. In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that a herniated disc coupled with severe pain in the neck and numbness in the toes did not constitute serious injury within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Anyone who has ever suffered a herniated disc with these symptoms (me included!) might feel quite the contrary.
Given the uncertainty presented by the limited tort option, as well as the modest value of the potential savings, we continue to believe that full tort coverage is the best choice for most motorists. Saving a few dollars by choosing limited tort coverage can be a short-sighted approach and can have disastrous consequences in the event of an accident. In our last issue, we explored other ways to reduce auto insurance costs which do not impair the underlying level of coverage. Limited tort is not on our list of recommended alternatives.
If you ever have a question in this area, feel free to give us a call.
– Kevin Palmer