Limited Tort or Full Tort?

An article response by Attorney Edgar Snyder

Letters to the Business Editor
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Choose Pennsylvania Car Insurance Wisely

The June 25 "On the Money" column [discussed how] limited tort on auto insurance coverage could "save big bucks." That may be true for some people, but not for the average driver. Every scenario is different, based upon your coverage, driving record, age, location and other factors.

Patricia Sabatini responds to a question from an understandably confused woman seeking advice about downgrading to limited vs. full tort on an auto insurance policy. Her agent quoted her a $1,471 annual savings, which is significant. But this is not the norm — not all insurance policies are created equal.

The family evaluating their options lives in Philadelphia, where rates can be up to four times what Pittsburghers pay for insurance. Plus, she’s covering her husband and two kids, both in their early 20s — a high-risk age category. We don’t know much more about her family besides the car they want to buy.

So what do you risk by choosing limited over full tort? With few exceptions, you give up the right to receive compensation for pain and suffering if you are injured in an accident.

Some drivers rationalize choosing limited tort because they do not relinquish rights if their injuries are deemed "serious." It may surprise you to know that insurance companies define "serious" as death, severe and permanent disfigurement, or catastrophic injuries that impair body function. A woman who missed four weeks of work and was left with constant headaches, back pain and ringing in her ears: not serious. A man who endured more than a year of treatment and painful limping after a sprain and strain: not serious. A man who suffered a fractured leg and was in a cast for three months: not serious. All received nothing.

If you have limited tort and there’s a question about whether your injury is serious, you are guaranteed that the insurance company will force you into litigation. That arduous and expensive process will take at least a year, and you still may not receive any compensation whatsoever, even though you were injured in an accident that was not your fault.

You may not realize the pain and suffering an injured person can endure, sometimes for months, sometimes for the rest of his life. Limited tort not only puts you at risk but your family at risk as well. You and your family are at risk not only in your own car, but also when you or your children are injured as a passenger in someone else’s car, or as a pedestrian.

My law firm has represented thousands of people injured in accidents. Many drivers opt for limited tort to save a few dollars, only to lose tens of thousands of dollars they would have been entitled to receive after being severely injured in an accident. What do you tell someone whose life has been turned upside down — an innocent victim of someone else’s negligence — when they can’t claim compensation for pain and suffering?

I urge drivers to research prices before making a decision. A colleague of mine recently faced the full/limited tort dilemma. She discovered her family would save just $150 a year by switching to limited tort. No one believes the unthinkable will happen, but she chooses to protect herself and her family — better safe than sorry.

EDGAR SNYDER
Attorney at Law
Pittsburgh, PA