Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sr0o+
From: Steven Ritter <sr0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Insurance, Limited Tort Option
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 10:03:52 -0400
Organization: Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 24
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <YfpeL8C00WBNA1xJku@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <34666@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <34666@oasys.dt.navy.mil>

In my opinion, the limited tort option is the best thing Casey has ever
done. Basically, limited tort means that you give up your right to sue
for pain and suffering, unless one of the following conditions is met:
1. Your medical bills resulting from the accident exceed $X (where X is
some number like 50,000 -- I'm not sure of the exact number)

2. The accident was caused by a drunk driver (I mean, the OTHER driver
was drunk)

3. You get a good lawyer and have a good case (basically, you can appeal
to regain your right to sue, but there's almost no chance of this ever
happening).

You are only giving up your right to sue for pain and suffering; you can
still sue for medical costs, actual damages, etc. By agreeing to limited
tort, you are essentially giving up your right to be an asshole who
treats every accident as an entry into the litigation lottery. In
exchange, you get a substantial reduction in your rates. I save
$150/year.

Unfortunately, the insurance companies have managed to scare and confuse
people so much that only about 5% of Pennsylvanians go for limited tort.
I guess that's OK -- If more people opted for it, the insurance
companies would be pushing harder for repeal.
