If you’re a Pennsylvania driver, there’s one choice on your auto insurance policy that could decide how much help you get after a serious accident: limited tort or full tort. The difference can mean everything when it comes to your right to sue for pain and suffering.
At Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, we’ve seen firsthand how this decision affects our clients. After a car accident, you may be dealing with lost wages, pain, mounting medical bills, and an uncertain future. The kind of coverage you choose now can determine how much support you’ll have later. That’s why it’s so important to understand the difference—and why full tort is almost always the better choice.
What Is Limited Tort Car Insurance?
Limited tort insurance costs less—but that savings comes at a cost. It restricts your ability to recover money for pain and suffering unless your injuries meet a strict legal threshold. That threshold includes death, significant disfigurement, or serious impairment of a bodily function. Economic damages like medical bills and lost wages are still available, but non-economic damages—those that often matter most—are much harder to claim.
Key exceptions where you may still sue for pain and suffering with limited tort:
- If the at-fault driver was drunk
- If the at-fault driver was from out of state
- If you were a pedestrian or cyclist
But unless your situation qualifies for an exception, your right to full compensation could be gone before you even file a claim.
What Is Full Tort Insurance?
Full tort coverage gives you the right to pursue all available damages after an accident—including pain, suffering, emotional distress, and diminished quality of life. That freedom can make a huge difference in serious injury cases where economic damages only scratch the surface of what you’ve lost.
While full tort costs more in monthly premiums, the protection it provides is well worth the added expense. We've worked with countless clients who were grateful they had full tort when they needed it most.
A Real-World Example: Sam vs. Jordan
Picture this:
- Sam has full tort. After a rear-end collision leaves him with chronic back pain and months of missed work, he files a lawsuit. His case settles for $120,000—covering his treatment, lost wages, and the toll it’s taken on his life.
- Jordan chose limited tort. Same injuries, same impact. But because his injuries don’t meet the legal threshold, he can’t sue for pain and suffering. He recovers only $18,000—just enough to cover the basics.
Sam is rebuilding. Jordan is falling behind. The only difference? Their insurance coverage.
Full Tort vs. Limited Tort: What’s Right for You?
If you can afford it, full tort is the better choice. It’s the only way to guarantee you can hold a negligent driver fully accountable. Medical bills are only one piece of the puzzle—what about your ability to work? Your independence? Your peace of mind?
If you’re like most Pennsylvanians, you chose limited tort because it was cheaper. But if it’s been a while since you reviewed your policy, now’s the time. Call your insurance company. Ask what it would take to switch. That one decision could be the difference between partial compensation—and a full recovery.
Hurt in a Car? Call HHR.
If you’ve already been hurt and you're unsure whether limited tort applies to your case, we can help. There are exceptions, and sometimes what looks like a closed door may still open. We’ve handled thousands of injury cases for clients across Pennsylvania and recovered tens of millions for people in need.
Talk to us today. Contact our personal injury attorneys for a free consultation. Let’s find out what options you still have—and how we can help you move forward.