Limitations on Limited Tort
Our Pittsburgh lawyers explain the limited tort election elsewhere on this blog (here). Briefly, electing limited tort on one's motor vehicle insurance policy -- to get lower premiums -- precludes the right to sue for pain and suffering from a motor vehicle collision.
PA's limited tort statute has exceptions, however. One key limitation is that the injury must occur to an occupant of a private passenger vehicle, for limited tort to apply.
Must be an Occupant of a Motor Vehicle
Limited tort only applies to injured occupants of a motor vehicle. This is an important carve-out in PA's limited tort statute to protect injured people. In effect, limited tort will not limit the claims of those injured:
-
- as a pedestrian, whether hit by a vehicle on the street, sidewalk, or otherwise,
- on a motorcycle,
- on a bike, bicycle or pedal cycle, or
- while operating an e-bike or e-scooter.
The Motor Vehicle Must be a "Private Passenger Vehicle"
The person injured must be occupying not just any "motor vehicle" -- for limited tort to apply -- it must be a "private passenger vehicle, meaning, not a ride-share or common carrier. In other words, limited tort does not apply to claims for injuries sustained inside a commercial vehicle or a bus, other common carrier, or any other vehicle "for transporting goods or passengers for hire nor rented to others without a driver." See 75 Pa. C.S. §1705(d)(3)(here).
Thus, the limited tort election does not apply to those injured in:
- a bus or other common carrier,
- a ride-share vehicle, such as an Uber or Lyft,
- a taxi or limousine, or
- any other commercial vehicle, such as one that transports goods, people, or equipment for commercial purposes, such as an Amazon driver.
Limited Tort May Apply to a Commercial Vehicle Injury
In Bennett v. Mucci, 901 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006), the plaintiff had elected limited tort but was injured in his purely commercial vehicle -- i.e., not a "private passenger vehicle." In fact, he testified in court -- in his claim for damages for pain and suffering despite having elected limited tort -- that his vehicle had been used entirely for commercial purposes. There, the trial court ruled against him, claiming he was bound by limited tort, anyway. He appealed to the superior court. There, the appellate court agreed with the trial court:
"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."
