• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

PA - limited tort

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

letterman7

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

My mother was involved in a wreck a few weeks ago. She carries limited tort on her insurance. The accident was the other drivers' fault - ran a red light - and he totalled her car. We've retained a lawyer for the case, but I can't get a straight answer as to where the limited tort ends. In other words, I understand we can't sue for pain and suffering unless there is permanent injury involved. At this point, she is very lucky and escaped with only a broken rib. But, since the car was totaled, we are only able to receive what the KBB value of the car is according to the insurance policy. That's fine, too. I understand that. However, being a senior citizen and widowed, she can't afford a new vehicle, and doesn't really want a used vehicle (you know how mothers can be...). My question is why can't she sue the guy who hit her, who happened to be running a landscaping business and the registration and insurance of his truck was in both his name and his wife's name rather than the business, for property damage to be able to replace her car? It just doesn't seem right that after paying for insurance for over 50 years with no major wrecks that this guy will be able to walk away with what amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, a ticket for running the light and higher premiums on his part, and my mother is stuck paying for a car out of her own pocket.

Opinions?
 


ecmst12

Senior Member
Limited tort has nothing to do with property damage, only injuries. The reason she is only getting the ACV of her car is because that is all she is entitled to under the law. The at fault party only has to make her whole, not better off then she was before. She did not have a new car before, she had a used car, likely in average private owner condition. If she wants to replace her used car with a new car, that's on her. The payment should be enough or close to enough for her to get another car of the same year/make/model. If it is not quite enough for that, it is because cars at dealerships are generally in better condition then owned cars. But it should be close. The KBB value, BTW, does not accurately represent the value of a privately owned car, so if she's getting that, she's already lucky.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Your mother has the the right to be back where she was prior to the accident, she does not have the right to unjust enrichment. If she was driving a $4000 car, that is all she will and should get. The other driver and his insurance have the right to not be penalized because your mother wants to put in a better situation than she was prior to the accident. It was your mother's choice to be underinsured at the time of the accident and now it is her choice on how she wants to replace her vehicle. The other driver and the folks that pay for insurance should not have to pay higher rates because of a poor decision by your mother.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Having more insurance on her car would not make it worth more and so not equate to her getting any more money for her property damage.
 

letterman7

Junior Member
Your mother has the the right to be back where she was prior to the accident, she does not have the right to unjust enrichment. If she was driving a $4000 car, that is all she will and should get. The other driver and his insurance have the right to not be penalized because your mother wants to put in a better situation than she was prior to the accident. It was your mother's choice to be underinsured at the time of the accident and now it is her choice on how she wants to replace her vehicle. The other driver and the folks that pay for insurance should not have to pay higher rates because of a poor decision by your mother.
Define unjust enrichment. I own my own business. I have full tort on my vehicle, and more than enough coverage (I hope). If I had hit someone like what had happened to my mother, I would expect to be sued three ways from Monday, regardless of whether I carried full or partial tort. I would expect that the person I hit to come after me, my business and everything I own for monetary compensation for "pain and suffering" or "mental anguish" or anything else you can think of regardless of whether they were hurt or not! Am I wrong in thinking that?
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
The tort only limits her ability to sue for pain and suffering! It has nothing to do with the value of her vehicle! If her car was worth $4000 before the accident, she gets $4000. She can do with it what she wants. She can buy a new car and finance the rest, or she can buy a used car foe $4000.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It's clear. With regard to the property damage (ie: the totaled car): Your mother is entitled to the fair market value of the vehicle - nothing more.
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
Define unjust enrichment. I own my own business. I have full tort on my vehicle, and more than enough coverage (I hope). If I had hit someone like what had happened to my mother, I would expect to be sued three ways from Monday, regardless of whether I carried full or partial tort. I would expect that the person I hit to come after me, my business and everything I own for monetary compensation for "pain and suffering" or "mental anguish" or anything else you can think of regardless of whether they were hurt or not! Am I wrong in thinking that?
Unjust enrichment would be her old used car gets wrecked and the other driver is forced to buy her a new one that is much better then the one she had. Thus enriching her!
 

MaggieMcGill

Junior Member
I hate to tell you this but...

PA's a no fault state -meaning if you're in an accident and injured it doesn't matter who's at fault you put the claim thru your own auto insurance. This applies whether you're the driver, passenger, pedestrian, or the underage dependent of the insured. If you've opted for limited tort on your policy, you've signed away your right to sue unless the injury is ruled life threatening or very serious in the eyes of the court. That's why the lawyer can't tell you right now if your mom can sue for pain & suffering. A broken rib on it's own probably wouldn't be considered serious enough to overcome the tort issue. It doesn't matter that the other driver was completely at fault, owns a business, etc., unless he was DWI or met other criteria.

The best thing you can do for your mom is change her insurance to full tort and add uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage so she'll be fully protected. Hope this helps.
 

letterman7

Junior Member
Yeah, we're learning the hard way about this. I've always carried full tort; I had assumed she did as well. Her insurance agent 'strongly advised' carrying the partial, since it would lower her rates and not put such a strain on the budget. So much for that!

Thanks for all the replies. Frustrating to be sure when one's hands are tied.

R
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Really, full tort would not have gotten her much here. Her injuries are pretty minor so any pain and suffering award would have been minimal. Her medical bills are already being paid by PIP and her property damage is being taken care of - full vs limited tort does not affect that. If she can't afford to have full tort, it's not a terrible thing to give up.
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
PA's a no fault state -meaning if you're in an accident and injured it doesn't matter who's at fault you put the claim thru your own auto insurance. This applies whether you're the driver, passenger, pedestrian, or the underage dependent of the insured. If you've opted for limited tort on your policy, you've signed away your right to sue unless the injury is ruled life threatening or very serious in the eyes of the court. That's why the lawyer can't tell you right now if your mom can sue for pain & suffering. A broken rib on it's own probably wouldn't be considered serious enough to overcome the tort issue. It doesn't matter that the other driver was completely at fault, owns a business, etc., unless he was DWI or met other criteria.

The best thing you can do for your mom is change her insurance to full tort and add uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage so she'll be fully protected. Hope this helps.
Not quite! Limited tort means you can't sue for pain and suffering unless the other driver is from out of state, the other driver is drunk, or you suffer a permanent injury. You can sue for all of your damages including lost wages and medical bills even with limited tort!
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
You can't get your medical bills paid by the other party unless your PIP is exhausted. And PIP payments are non-subrogatable in PA. You can get reimbursed for lost wages, but a lawsuit is generally not required for that, and only if you lost time from work that you were not paid for at all. In other words, if you had vacation time, sick time, disability benefits, etc which amounted to you getting the same paycheck then if you had been working, you can't get any reimbursement for lost wages, since technically you haven't lost any. Even if you lost days from your vacation bank, you can't get money to represent that because that would be a "non monetary damage" which you give up the right to go after when you have limited tort.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top