In our last post, we began speaking about the distinction between limited tort and full tort insurance here in Pennsylvania. As we noted, the primary difference between the two is the ability to pursue non-economic damages for serious injuries. Selecting limited tort coverage will allow a motorist to save money, but it also means giving up the right to pursue non-economic damages.

Before making a choice between full tort coverage and limited tort coverage, it is important to look at both premium costs and the extent of coverage. Another point that needs to be made about the connection between auto insurance and damages is that those who have limited-tort coverage still have the ability to sue for unreimbursed economic losses. 

By unreimbursed is meant losses which exceed the maximum coverage under their car insurance policy. Different policies, of course, have different limits when it comes to reimbursing policyholders and accident victims. Under state law, there are minimum requirements a motorist must carry to be considered financially responsible for potential damages to others and property. They consist of a minimum of $15,000 for injuries to a single person, $30,000 for injuries to more than person, and $5,000 for property damage.  

In addition, Pennsylvania motorists must also purchase a minimum amount of benefits for themselves. The requirement is at least $5,000 in medical benefits. Many motorists choose to obtain more extensive coverage, both for themselves and others, and these decisions are important since they determine how much risk one takes of being sued for car accident injuries, and how much coverage will be available before they have to pursue personal injury litigation to recover unreimbursed costs.