by Timothy A. Shollenberger, Esq.

This is the fourth in a series of articles designed to better inform you about the purchase of automobile insurance so that you can make the choices that are best for you. This article is not intended as a substitute for the advice of your insurance agent.

The other day I received a call from someone who was involved in a car accident. They were hurt and frustrated that they could not find anyone to help them. I asked if they had full or limited tort. They quickly replied, “I have full coverage.” When I called his agent, I learned that he did have full coverage, in other words, he had purchased coverage in all of the necessary and all of the optional categories. But in one of the most important of all categories- his selection of a tort option – he had chosen limited tort.

Pennsylvanians can purchase two kinds of protection if they are injured in an accident due to the carelessness of another driver. Those who select the limited tort option give up their right to collect damages for pain, suffering, scarring, disfigurement, inconvenience, loss of life's pleasures and other so called non economic damages unless they can prove that they have suffered a serious injury. A SERIOUS INJURY is defined as a serious impairment of a body function or permanent serious disfigurement. Pennsylvanians who select the full tort option receive compensation for non economic losses but do not have to jump the significant legal hurdle of having to prove a serious injury.

Keep in mind that a serious injury for one might not be a serious injury to another because it is the loss of function not the kind of injury that controls WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE NON-ECONOMIC LOSS IS COVERED. For example, the loss of a finger on a non dominant hand might not be a serious injury if that person does not use their hands repetitively for work or can compensate easily for the loss of the appendage, while a loss of a finger for a pianist would be. It is hard to imagine that the loss of the finger was not equally painful for both!

These options are really misnamed. The limited tort option ought better be called the limited right to compensation option and the full tort option the full right to compensation option, because that is what they really are. Another way to think of it that I always tell my clients is this: When you go to the restaurant, you can either order the filet or the hamburger. The full tort option is the filet and the limited tort option is the hamburger.

It is important to understand that your choice of the limited tort option is binding on all those who are related to you who live in your household, including minor children. When it comes right down to it, children are impacted more severely if they are unable to sue for pain and suffering, because often that is the only damage that they can collect if they are not of working age and their medical bills are otherwise paid for.

Lest you think that it is easy to prove a serious injury, think again. The overwhelming majority of these cases are won by the defendant - with the injured person receiving nothing. I can personally attest to two cases in which I was trial counsel. IN THE FIRST CASE, a man in his 20's had a knee injury which required two surgeries and in which he developed arthritis; IN THE SECOND CASE, all three of the treating doctors testified that the Plaintiff had a serious impairment of body function of her dominant right hand. In each case, the injured person received nothing for their past and future pain and suffering.

Cost is always a factor to be considered. Many times, the extra cost of having full tort is well worth it. As with all other types of coverage, it is always prudent to purchase as much insurance as you can reasonably afford. If you do not, you risk placing yourself and your family in the position of becoming a member of an ever increasing group of Pennsylvanians – the victims of a coverage tragedy, the unfortunate situation when the amount of the loss exceeds the amount of the coverage.