Limitations on Limited Tort

Man driving vehicle

We describe the limited tort election elsewhere on this site. Bottom line: choosing limited tort on your motor vehicle insurance policy might lower your cost of insurance, but it prevents you from suing from pain and suffering unless an exception exists to limited tort. 

One major exception is the “private passenger vehicle” concept.  In other words, for limited tort to apply — limiting your claims — you must be riding inside another’s vehicle, and the vehicle must be “private,” i.e., not commercial. Let’s break this down.    

 

Must be an Occupant of a Motor Vehicle

The private passenger exception is set forth in PA’s limited tort statute to protect injured people. With the “occupant” requirement, many types of injuries fall outside of limited tort, including those sustained as:

    • as someone walking, a pedestrian, whether hit by a vehicle on the street, sidewalk, or privatePedestrian walking beside biker parking lot such as a mall,
    • those riding a motorcycle as the driver or passenger,
    • anyone operating a bicycle,

 

Private Passenger Vehicle

“Private” passenger vehicle means just that: private vehicles, like those owned by friends or family, and used for non-commercial purposes, such as: “transporting goods or passengers for hire . . ..” See 75 Pa. C.S. §1705(d)(3)(here).

As such, the limited tort concept — limiting the passenger’s rights to sue — will not apply to injuries sustained inside a ride-share such as Uber or Lyft, or common carrier, such as a bus or taxi.

 

Look at the True Purpose of the Vehicle 

The courts are free to look at the true purpose of the vehicle.  

In Bennett v. Mucci, 901 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006), the plaintiff had elected limited tort.  He maintained that his vehicle was a commercial vehicle, however.  The court disagreed.  

“First, the record reflects that Appellants procured from their insurer a private passenger vehicle liability insurance policy on the vehicle in question. Therefore, for purposes of this litigation, the record supports a conclusion that the vehicle in which Michael Bennett was injured is a private passenger vehicle, even though Appellants purportedly used the vehicle for business/commercial purposes. Thus, one who elects limited tort coverage for a vehicle under a private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance policy can not later claim that the same vehicle is not a private passenger motor vehicle for purposes of § 1705. (emphasis added)”

There, ultimately, the Plaintiff was limited to recover, at most, the cost of his medical expenses and lost wages, but was barred from recovering the non-economic award of “pain and suffering.”

 

Let’s Get Going!

Contact a Pittsburgh lawyer at our firm for a free consultation regarding limited tort in Pennsylvania. 

412.342.0992