Limited Tort vs. Full Tort Auto Insurance

Understanding Limited Tort vs. Full Tort Auto Insurance

Why saving a buck today could have you out of luck tomorrow.

"CHOOSE FULL TORT!" This is what we here at Woomer & Talarico tell our family members, loved ones, and really anyone who will listen whenever they ask about auto insurance policies.

Pennsylvania insurers offer you a choice when you're selecting an auto insurance policy. You can choose between a Full Tort option and a cheaper, Limited Tort, option. The key difference between these two options is your ability to sue the at-fault driver for "pain and suffering."

The injuries from car accidents can have effects that last for months, years, or in some cases, permanently. Simply put, car accidents can change lives. By choosing the Full Tort option on your auto insurance policy, you have the ability to bring a claim for all injuries associated with the effects of these accidents. By choosing Limited Tort, you might limit your recovery to the cost of your out-of-pocket expenses only. If you have been involved in an accident and have chosen the Limited Tort option, you may still be able to sue for pain and suffering in some situations, so it is important to consult an attorney to determine if you have a case.

We here at Woomer & Talarico have seen these life-changing accidents firsthand and firmly believe that the benefits of the Full Tort option are well worth the extra few dollars a month. We strongly urge you to consider calling your insurance company and selecting the Full Tort option if you have not done so already. The very small increase in your monthly premium could be the difference between being compensated for injuries or getting no compensation at all.

Does the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Act apply to you?

The act applies where an establishment with a liquor license serves a patron while he or she is visibly intoxicated, and the patron, or some other person, is injured due to that intoxication. This act only applies to establishments licensed to serve alcohol and does not apply to private parties.

To have a successful case, the plaintiff must prove that the establishment served a visibly intoxicated person, and the intoxication played a part in the plaintiff's injuries. The theory is that a bartender, waitress, or other employee should not serve a patron if he or she knows or should know that the patron is intoxicated. Slurred speech, stumbling, glassy eyes, and alcohol on the breath are all signs of visible intoxication.

If it is found that a person was visibly intoxicated, the establishment serving the alcohol can be held liable for the injuries caused by the visibly intoxicated patron. The act applies to car accidents, trip and falls, and even bar fights.

A common scenario is one in which a visibly intoxicated patron was served alcohol by an establishment and then drives away from the bar and subsequently causes an automobile accident due to his or her intoxication. If it is proven that he was served while visibly intoxicated, the liquor establishment may be held liable for all the injuries to the intoxicated driver and those he injured.

Contact our office if you or someone you know has been injured by an individual you believe was over-served at a bar or another establishment.