Full Tort vs Limited Tort: Key Differences and Legal Impact
Understand how full and limited tort options affect your legal rights, insurance claims, and potential compensation in personal injury cases.
Choosing the right type of auto insurance in states like Pennsylvania involves a critical decision between full tort and limited tort coverage, options that significantly affect your legal rights and potential compensation following a car accident. Understanding the distinction is essential, as it dictates your ability to recover damages for injuries caused by another driver.
Legal Basis for Full Tort
The full tort option preserves a policyholder’s traditional rights derived from common law principles governing civil wrongs, or torts. Under these principles, an individual injured due to another’s negligence is generally entitled to seek compensation for all resulting harm. Selecting full tort means retaining the unrestricted right to sue an at-fault driver not only for quantifiable economic losses, such as medical bills and lost wages, but also for non-economic damages, which cover harms like pain and suffering. This option upholds the principle that an injured party should have the ability to pursue full recovery for all damages recognized by law, provided the other driver is found responsible.
Legal Basis for Limited Tort
Limited tort coverage is a statutory creation, established by state legislatures often aiming to reduce auto insurance premiums and litigation.1Congressional Research Service. State No-Fault Auto Insurance Laws: An Overview It offers drivers a trade-off: potentially lower insurance costs in exchange for accepting restrictions on their right to sue after an accident. By choosing limited tort, a policyholder agrees to curtail their ability, and often that of household members on the same policy, to sue an at-fault driver for certain types of damages. This restriction primarily affects the recovery of non-economic losses. While the right to seek compensation for economic damages generally remains, the ability to pursue compensation for the less tangible impacts of an injury is significantly limited by statute, modifying the rights otherwise available under common law.
Filing a Lawsuit Under Either Option
Initiating a lawsuit after a car accident begins similarly under both options. The injured party (plaintiff) files a complaint alleging the other driver (defendant) was negligent and caused the injuries and damages. Establishing the defendant’s fault is necessary for any recovery.
The crucial difference lies in the scope of damages that can be sought. With a full tort selection, the lawsuit can demand compensation for all legally recognized damages, including both economic costs (like medical bills and lost income) and non-economic harms (like pain and suffering), assuming liability and damages can be proven. The legal claim seeks the full spectrum of compensation.
Under the limited tort option, the lawsuit is generally restricted from the outset. While the plaintiff can sue the negligent driver to recover documented economic losses, their ability to claim non-economic damages is constrained by the terms of their insurance choice. The lawsuit primarily focuses on recovering these out-of-pocket financial costs, reflecting the policyholder’s prior agreement to forgo seeking certain types of compensation unless specific, legally defined exceptions apply, such as suffering a “serious injury” as defined by state law.2Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 75 § 1705 – Election of Tort Options
Non-Economic Damages
Non-economic damages compensate for the intangible, non-monetary consequences of an injury caused by negligence. Unlike economic damages, which cover verifiable financial losses, non-economic damages address subjective harms like physical pain, emotional distress, inconvenience, mental anguish, disfigurement, and the loss of life’s pleasures or a spouse’s companionship (loss of consortium). These damages acknowledge that the impact of an injury often extends beyond financial costs, aiming to provide monetary recognition for the suffering and disruption experienced by the injured person.
Under a full tort selection, an injured individual retains the right to seek compensation for the full range of these non-economic losses from an at-fault party, provided negligence and the extent of damages are proven.
Choosing the limited tort option, however, typically involves relinquishing the right to recover most non-economic damages. While compensation for documented economic losses is usually permitted, the ability to obtain monetary awards for pain, suffering, and similar harms is generally forfeited. This restriction is the central element of the limited tort trade-off, exchanging the right to sue for these less tangible impacts for potentially lower insurance premiums, unless specific statutory exceptions are met.
Changing Your Policy
Policyholders can typically change their tort selection between full and limited tort after initially purchasing their auto insurance. This allows drivers to adjust their coverage based on evolving needs or preferences.
To modify the selection, the policyholder must contact their insurance provider or agent to make a formal request. Insurers usually require clear documentation to process the change accurately.
Changes generally take effect at the policy’s renewal date, although specific procedures should be confirmed with the insurer. Importantly, any change applies only prospectively—it affects coverage for accidents occurring after the modification is officially recorded by the insurer and cannot alter coverage for past incidents.
Finalizing the switch requires formal documentation, such as an updated declarations page or a specific tort option form signed by the policyholder. This paperwork confirms the new selection and its effective date. Policyholders should retain a copy for their records. The chosen option remains in effect for subsequent renewals unless another change is actively requested.
