From time to time over the last several years we have addressed the issue of whether drivers are better served electing “limited tort” or “full tort” insurance coverage. Since we handle many car accident cases, we see this issue often. The basic theory of limited tort is that you give up the right to sue for most personal injuries in exchange for reduced insurance premiums. Under the limited tort approach, you can only sue for “serious” personal injuries caused by another driver. By way of contrast, with full tort coverage you can sue for any injuries you incur regardless of severity.
So what is a serious injury? Not surprisingly, the courts have been flooded with cases on this very issue in the last few years. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that it is up to the jury (not the judge) to determine whether an injury is serious. As a result, one of the primary goals of the limited tort system, reduction in the number of court cases, has been undermined.
Clearly injuries in the nature of bruises, cuts and scrapes are not serious injuries. But what about soft tissue injuries like back sprains, herniated discs, concussions and the like? Pain, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who has ever suffered a herniated lumbar disc knows the meaning of serious pain yet the courts have been divided over whether this is enough of an injury to get over the limited tort threshold.
We continue to believe that the full tort election is best in most cases. Have your insurance agent compute the difference in premium between full tort and limited tort and decide for yourself whether the savings is worth it. The few dollars you save with limited tort could probably be just as easily saved by increasing your deductibles (see our cover story) and maintaining your full tort coverage.
– Curt Ward