Is Full Tort Auto Insurance Worth It in PA?
Your PA auto insurance choice matters. Learn how full or limited tort coverage influences your compensation after an accident.
When selecting auto insurance in Pennsylvania, drivers encounter important choices that directly influence their rights to compensation following an accident. These choices, specifically between “full tort” and “limited tort” options, determine the scope of damages an individual can seek if injured due to another driver’s negligence.
Pennsylvania Auto Insurance Tort Options
Within Pennsylvania’s auto insurance system, “tort options” refer to the legal framework that defines an individual’s ability to pursue a claim for certain types of damages after a car accident. These options primarily govern the right to seek compensation for “non-economic” losses, such as pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Pennsylvania operates as a “choice no-fault” state, which means drivers have the option to select how their insurance will handle claims for injuries.
The two primary choices available to Pennsylvania drivers are “full tort” and “limited tort” coverage. While both options provide coverage for economic damages like medical bills and lost wages, they differ significantly in their approach to non-economic damages.
Understanding Full Tort Coverage
Choosing full tort insurance in Pennsylvania provides the broadest rights to seek financial compensation for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident caused by another party. Under this option, an individual and their household members retain the unrestricted ability to pursue a claim for all types of damages. This includes both economic losses, such as medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, and lost wages, as well as vehicle repair or replacement costs.
Beyond tangible financial losses, full tort coverage also allows for the recovery of non-economic damages. These intangible losses encompass pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of life’s pleasures. The important aspect of full tort is that there is no threshold of injury severity that must be met to claim these non-economic damages.
Understanding Limited Tort Coverage
Opting for limited tort insurance in Pennsylvania restricts an individual’s ability to seek financial compensation for non-economic damages following an accident. Under this coverage, a policyholder can still recover economic damages, including medical bills, lost income, and out-of-pocket expenses, regardless of who is at fault. However, the right to sue for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or disfigurement is constrained.
To recover non-economic damages with limited tort coverage, the injured party must generally meet a legal definition of “serious injury” or qualify under specific exceptions. Pennsylvania law (75 Pa.C.S.A. 1702) defines a “serious injury” as one resulting in death, serious impairment of a bodily function, or permanent serious disfigurement. This threshold can be a high bar to meet, often requiring life-altering injuries to qualify.
Several exceptions exist that may allow a limited tort policyholder to pursue non-economic damages as if they had full tort coverage. For instance, if the at-fault driver is convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or accepts Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD), the limitation may not apply. Other exceptions include being hit by an uninsured driver, a vehicle registered out-of-state, or sustaining an injury while a pedestrian, bicyclist, or passenger in a commercial vehicle.
Key Distinctions and Considerations
The fundamental distinction between full tort and limited tort in Pennsylvania lies in the ability to recover for non-economic damages. Full tort offers an unrestricted right to seek compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress, irrespective of the injury’s severity. In contrast, limited tort restricts this right unless a “serious injury” threshold is met or specific statutory exceptions apply. This means that with limited tort, even significant pain and inconvenience may not be compensable if they do not meet the legal definition of a serious injury.
A common motivation for choosing limited tort is the potential for lower insurance premiums. Limited tort policies generally cost less, with reported savings ranging from approximately 15% to potentially $100-$200 annually. This cost difference represents a trade-off: reduced premiums in exchange for restricted recovery rights for non-economic losses. For some, these savings may seem appealing, but it is important to consider the potential long-term financial implications if a serious accident occurs.
When making a decision between these two options, several personal factors warrant consideration. An individual’s personal health and susceptibility to injury, along with their driving habits and perceived risk exposure, can influence the choice. Furthermore, a thorough assessment of one’s financial situation and tolerance for assuming the risk of uncompensated non-economic losses is important. Non-economic damages often constitute a substantial portion of personal injury settlements, highlighting the potential impact of this decision. The choice ultimately depends on an individual’s comfort level with the potential limitations on legal recourse for pain and suffering in the event of an accident.