A lot of people leave a crash in the Rittenhouse area thinking the next step is obvious. The other driver was careless, so a claim for pain and suffering should follow. In Pennsylvania, that is not always true. It depends on a choice made when the auto policy was bought or renewed, often with little discussion at the kitchen table.
That choice is the tort option under section 1705 of Title 75. You elect limited tort or full tort. The election follows the named insured and the household members who are insured under that private passenger policy. It is one of the first questions a Philadelphia injury lawyer will ask, and it should be one of yours too.
What full tort means
Section 1705(c) keeps it short. A person bound by the full tort election remains eligible to seek compensation for noneconomic loss claimed and economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident, as the consequence of the fault of another person, under ordinary tort law.
Noneconomic loss is defined in section 1702 as pain and suffering and other nonmonetary detriment. Economic loss is the medical bills, lost income and out-of-pocket costs that can be tied to the crash. Full tort does not decide whether you will win. It decides whether you are allowed to ask for both kinds of harm.
What limited tort takes away, and what it leaves
Under section 1705(d), a person who elects limited tort may still seek compensation for economic loss caused by another person’s fault. The restriction is on noneconomic loss. Unless the injury is a “serious injury,” that person may not maintain an action for pain and suffering or other noneconomic loss.
The statute defines serious injury in section 1702. It is a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement. Those are legal phrases, not informal ones. A painful sprain that heals can fall short. A lasting impairment of a body function can meet the test. Whether a particular injury is “serious” is a question for a lawyer and, if needed, a court. This guide cannot answer it for your case.
The exceptions that restore full tort rights
Even a limited-tort election is not a complete wall. Section 1705(d) lists situations where a person otherwise bound by limited tort may recover as if the full tort alternative had been chosen.
The person at fault is convicted, or accepts Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in that accident. The person at fault is operating a motor vehicle registered in another state. The person at fault intends to injure himself or another person, with a caution in the statute about what does not count as intent. The person at fault has not maintained financial responsibility as required by Chapter 17, subject to a limit in the uninsured motorist section.
Two more exceptions sit in the same subsection. A person bound by limited tort keeps full tort rights on certain claims against a business that designs, manufactures, repairs, services or otherwise maintains motor vehicles, when the claim arises out of a defect caused by or not corrected in the course of that business. And a person bound by limited tort keeps full tort rights if injured while an occupant of a motor vehicle other than a private passenger motor vehicle. A crash in a bus, a truck or another vehicle that is not a private passenger car can change the analysis.
People who never made the election
Section 1705(b)(3) matters for pedestrians, many passengers and anyone who does not own a currently registered private passenger motor vehicle and is not a named insured or insured under any such policy. That person shall not be precluded from maintaining an action for noneconomic loss or economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of another person’s fault. In plain terms, the limited-tort box someone else checked on a car policy is not automatically your box if you are not on a policy of that kind.
Where more than one private passenger policy could apply and the tort options conflict, section 1705(b)(2) says the insured is bound by the option of the policy associated with the private passenger motor vehicle in which the insured is an occupant at the time of the accident, if the person is an insured on that policy, and is bound by the full tort option otherwise.
How the election is made
The statute requires a written notice, on a standardized form, describing both options. The notice in section 1705(a) is blunt about the default. If you do not sign and return the limited-tort notice, you are considered to have chosen full tort coverage and you will be charged the full-tort premium. People sometimes assume they have limited tort because it costs less, or full tort because they never signed anything. The paperwork, not the assumption, controls.
Once made, the election continues on renewal and replacement policies until the insurer receives a properly executed form electing the other option, under section 1705(b)(1). It is worth getting a copy of the declarations page and the tort-option form out of the policy file, or from the agent, early. Waiting until a claim is underway only makes the search harder.
How this fits with first-party benefits and uninsured coverage
Limited tort does not take away the first-party medical benefit that section 1711 requires on most auto policies. Those benefits, and the two-year deadline to sue, are separate topics. Our first-party benefits guide and our deadline guide cover them.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage has its own hook. Under section 1731(d)(2), a person precluded from maintaining an action for noneconomic damages under section 1705 may not recover those noneconomic damages from uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage either. The tort option can follow you into your own UM claim.
If you were hurt in a crash in Philadelphia and you are not sure which option is on the policy, read the form and talk with a Pennsylvania injury lawyer before you guess. The difference is not a technicality. It can decide whether a pain-and-suffering claim is even allowed to start.