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?
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?