Limited Tort v. Full Tort
What is the difference between full tort and limited tort?
If you are selecting a car insurance policy, it is important to understand the difference between full and limited tort. Limited tort can save you money – but it comes at a cost in the event you are involved in a car accident – even if the car accident was not your fault.
The primary difference between full tort and limited tort options in Pennsylvania lies in the scope of recoverable damages following a car crash. With full tort, insured individuals (and generally their household members) can seek compensation for pain and suffering and other “non-economic” damages. Therefore, full tort allows a plaintiff, if injured, to recover far more in the event of a car crash that was not their fault.
Limited tort restricts a plaintiff’s ability to seek compensation for nonmonetary damages such as pain and suffering. Insured individuals with limited tort (and generally their household members) can only recover for medical and other out-of-pocket expenses unless the injuries meet the statutory definition of "serious injury" or “impairment of a bodily function” or otherwise the case falls under specific exceptions. These exceptions include situations where the at-fault driver is convicted of driving under the influence, is operating a vehicle registered in another state, or has not maintained car insurance, among others. See § 1791.1. Disclosure of premium charges and tort options; § 1705. Election of tort options.
Additionally, because with limited tort the insurance company is more likely to pay less money to a victim, the limited tort option generally results in lower insurance premiums compared to the full tort option, reflecting the reduced recoverable damages.
While it is obviously better to have a full tort policy, in certain cases you can get around the limited tort threshold. The most common way is by proving that there was a serious impairment of a bodily function or disfigurement (scarring). So, if someone lost a limb or was put in a coma due to a car crash, they could get around the limited tort threshold. If someone had a scar that is considered permanent, they too could get around the limited tort threshold and seek damages for pain and suffering. With the right amount of treatment history, you may be able to successfully argue to a fact finder that the limited tort threshold has been breached and full tort applies (allowing a plaintiff to recover far more than if they were just limited tort).
Lastly, even if you have limited tort and no serious impairment of a bodily function or disfigurement, you still may be able to get around the limited tort threshold by showing that the insurance company doesn’t have a valid tort election waiver – generally a signed document proving that the plaintiff consented to limited tort. The insurance company must provide you with notice of your options for limited tort or full tort. Because all insurance arguments are essentially contractual arguments, you need to have a lawyer who will press the insurance company to prove that you were limited tort.
If you have the economic means to afford full tort insurance, you should absolutely opt for it.
