Personal Injury · Auto Accidents
Limited Tort vs Full Tort in Pennsylvania Car Accident Cases
Pennsylvania drivers must choose between limited tort and full tort automobile insurance coverage when purchasing a policy. Many drivers select limited tort because it reduces premiums, often based on the belief that the difference between the two options will not matter unless a catastrophic injury occurs.
In practice, the choice can significantly affect legal rights after a crash. The difference between limited tort and full tort coverage does not determine who caused the accident. Instead, it determines whether the injured person may pursue compensation for pain and suffering.
At Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A., our Pittsburgh personal injury practice evaluates motor vehicle accident claims throughout Allegheny County and Western Pennsylvania. Insurance coverage questions frequently arise in car accident cases, where policy limits and tort elections can significantly affect the recovery available to injured drivers.
Limited tort is often presented as a simple way to save money on insurance premiums. In many policies, however, the difference between limited tort and full tort coverage is relatively modest.
After a serious accident, the legal limitations imposed by limited tort can be far more significant than the premium savings.
What Limited Tort Actually Restricts
Limited tort coverage restricts the ability to recover damages for pain and suffering after a motor vehicle accident. Pennsylvania law permits drivers to elect limited tort or full tort coverage when purchasing automobile insurance under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
Drivers who elect limited tort may still recover economic damages such as medical expenses, wage loss, and other financial losses resulting from the accident. What limited tort removes in many cases is the ability to recover non economic damages such as pain, physical suffering, and the broader personal impact of the injury.
What Full Tort Coverage Preserves
Full tort coverage preserves the injured person’s right to pursue both economic and non economic damages after a motor vehicle accident. When serious injuries occur, full tort coverage allows a claim for pain and suffering, permanent impairment, disfigurement, and the broader effects the injury may have on daily life.
Because of this difference, the tort option selected when purchasing insurance often becomes important only after an accident occurs.
The Serious Impairment Exception
Limited tort policies are frequently sold with the explanation that the restriction does not apply if the injuries are serious or permanent. Pennsylvania law does contain what is commonly referred to as the serious impairment of bodily function exception.
What many drivers do not realize is that this exception does not automatically apply simply because an injury feels serious. Courts examine how the injury affects the person’s ability to function in everyday life. Insurance companies frequently dispute whether the injury meets that legal threshold.
Loss of strength, reduced range of motion, nerve injury, chronic pain, muscle atrophy, or persistent functional limitations can all become part of the analysis. What initially appears to be a routine neck or back injury sometimes develops into a lasting impairment that affects the ability to work, exercise, or carry out normal activities.
Because insurers often challenge whether an injury qualifies as a serious impairment, the exception does not always provide the protection many drivers expect when they choose limited tort coverage.
Pennsylvania’s 15/30 Minimum Coverage Often Is Not Enough
Pennsylvania law allows drivers to carry relatively low minimum liability insurance limits. The commonly referenced “15/30” policy means the driver carries $15,000 of coverage for injuries to any one person and $30,000 total for all injured persons in a single accident.
These limits trace back to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law enacted in 1984. While medical costs, emergency care, surgery, and rehabilitation expenses have increased dramatically since that time, the minimum liability limits have remained essentially the same.
In modern accident cases, $15,000 of available coverage often does not come close to covering even moderate medical treatment. A single emergency room visit, imaging studies, or a course of physical therapy can exhaust those limits quickly.
When the at fault driver carries only minimum coverage, injured people frequently must look to other sources of recovery. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under their own policy often becomes critical in these situations.
When No Insurance Is Available
In some cases the at fault driver carries no insurance at all. Pennsylvania operates an Assigned Claims Plan that may provide limited benefits to injured people when no insurance coverage is available. The program has strict eligibility requirements and limited benefits, but it can provide an important safety net in certain situations.
Statute of Limitations
Pennsylvania generally requires personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents to be filed within two years of the date of the crash. Missing the statute of limitations can permanently bar recovery regardless of the severity of the injuries.
For a full overview of how the tort election affects your claim and what exceptions may apply, see our page on limited tort vs. full tort in Pennsylvania.
This article relates to our work in personal injury law. For more information about vehicle collision claims, see our auto accident practice. For how fault is determined in common crash types, see our article on rear end collision liability. For what happens when the other driver has no coverage, see uninsured driver accidents.