Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Pennsylvania Car Insurance

Limited Tort is Bad – Full Tort is Good

by Leave a Comment

There is no other way to say it – Limited Tort is Bad and Full Tort is Good.

Limited Tort artificially eliminates important legal rights for you and your family after a Car Accident, while Full Tort preserves those rights.

But let’s start at the beginning. What in the world is Limited Tort and Full Tort anyway ?

Limited Tort – A Legislative Tool to Limit Lawsuits and Reduce Insurance Costs

In the mid 1980s, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law (MVFRL) which created the Full Tort versus Limited Tort Election.

The stated purpose of the MVFRL was to reduce insurance costs and reduce litigation. Policy holders were given a choice to make when they bought car insurance, whether they wanted Full Tort or Limited Tort.

Limited Tort Jeopardizes Rights to Compensation While Full Tort Protects those Rights

Full Tort was more expensive coverage, but protected an injured person’s full legal rights to seek compensation after being injured in a car accident.

Limited Tort offered a premium discount, but in exchange for the savings, a policy holder waived the right to bring a lawsuit for non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, after being injured in a car accident cause by someone else. Unless someone covered by Limited Tort suffered a “serious injury” defined as “death, serious and permanent disfigurement or serious impairment of body function”, the right to non-economic damage compensation was waived.

The MVFRL seems to have a legitimate purpose but, in reality, people who choose Limited Tort and then are injured in car accidents, are almost universally disappointed by their choice because they have jeopardized important legal rights to compensation.

“But I’m Not the Suing Type Anyway….”

Although almost everyone believes that “they are not the suing type“, when people are actually injured in a car accident, they change their tune and realize that it is appropriate for the law to allow monetary compensation for victims, including compensation for non-economic damages, like pain and suffering. Once you are actually involved in a car collision that causes injuries, you realize that 99.9% of all personal injury claims are not “frivolous“ but, instead, the victim has suffered painful and disabling injuries innocently and deserves to have the defendant pay for all of the harm, not part of it.

The Problem with Limited Tort

The problem with Limited Tort is that it takes away those important legal rights and the premium savings does not justify the loss of those important rights.

Almost Everyone Who Has Limited Tort and then Has a Car Accident Regrets the Choice

During my 30 year career as a Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer, I have had to advise hundreds of potential Car Accident clients of the problem with their Limited Tort election. Nearly every one has regretted the minimal cost saving choice and has been bitterly disappointed with his or her car insurance agent for allowing the Limited Tort election. Once they truly comprehend the negative consequences of the choice of Limited Tort, they wish that they had preserved their full legal rights with Full Tort.

So, please check your Car Insurance Policy and make sure that you have Full Tort, not Limited Tort!

Pennsylvania Superior Court Decides Important Case Regarding Recovery of Future Medical Expenses From Car Accident Injuries

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT DECIDES CASE ON ABILITY TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Farese v. Robinson, a car accident case that was tried in Delaware County and resulted in a jury verdict in excess of $2.5 million. The Defendant appealed the verdict, and one of the arguments being presented in the appellate court was that the award for future medical expenses was too high because the court did not reduce the future medical expense claim using a cost containment provision contained in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

In the end, the Superior Court finally put to bed the long-standing question of whether the cost containment provision should apply to future medical expenses by deciding that accident victims should be entitled to recover the full amount of future medical expenses. Because of the uncertainty of future health insurance coverage, it would be unfair to have the car accident victims’ ability to recover money reduced and have them face risk as to whether they will have the money needed to pay for future medical treatment.

How Are Medical Expenses Paid After a Pennsylvania Car Accident?

Pennsylvania operates under a No-Fault system for payment of medical bills, which means that no matter who is at fault for causing a car accident, your own car insurance will pay for your medical bills up to the amount of your medical coverage. The minimum, and most common, car insurance medical coverage amount is $5,000. So, if you are injured in a car accident, usually the first $5,000 of your medical bills will be paid by your car insurance. Then, bills in excess of that amount will either be paid by your health insurance if you have it, or will need to be paid out of pocket. If another driver caused the accident, then you can make a legal claim against that driver to be compensated for any medical bills that are not paid by insurance, including any future medical bills that you are likely to incur for the remainder of your life expectancy.

As part of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law that was passed in 1990, there is a cost containment provision which indicates that medical providers cannot receive payment for medical treatment in excess of 110% of what Medicare would pay for those services. The purpose of the cost containment provision was to put a limit on medical bill reimbursement in order to keep car insurance rates reasonable.

If you are injured in a car accident, there is no such thing as a co-pay or deductible. Your medical provider will be paid by your car insurance up to 110% of what Medicare allows, and then the remainder of the bill must be written off.

However, when your medical coverage is used up (which is usually $5,000), then your medical providers can either bill your health insurance, and then co-pays and deductibles will kick in, or, if you don’t have health insurance, you can be billed directly for the full amount of medical bills. If the accident was someone else’s fault, you would have the right to claim compensation for those medical bills, including compensation for future medical bills. However, before the Farese v. Robinson Court Decision, it was uncertain as to whether future medical bills could be recovered in full or had to be reduced to 110% of Medicare rates.

What Was the Future Medical Bill Decision in the Farese v. Robinson Case?

In Farese v. Robinson, the trial court allowed Farese’s medical experts to testify that Mr. Farese would likely incur future medical expenses for his injuries. The trial court permitted the full amount of future medical expenses to be introduced into evidence, rather than forcing a recalculation which would reduce the bills to the 110% of Medicare cost containment amount. When the jury awarded Farese $900,000 in future medical expenses, Robinson’s attorneys claimed that such award was improper because the trial court should have forced Farese to reduce his claim to 110% of what Medicare would have paid.

Although no Pennsylvania appellate court had published a Decision on this issue to date, multiple Pennsylvania federal court judges had decided previously that it was improper to reduce future medical expenses using the cost containment provision.

Those courts reasoned that cost containment reduction of future bills would be improper because it could create a scenario under which the accident victim could end up with insufficient monies to pay future medical bills. There is no guarantee that anyone will have insurance to cover their future medical bills and, as such, to artificially reduce future medical bills could result in an accident victim receiving a verdict that would be insufficient to pay for his or her future medical needs.

Ultimately, the Superior Court found that the cost containment provision was intended to apply to only the medical treatment covered by someone’s no-fault coverage and not to all of the future medical bills that will ultimately be incurred.

In my opinion, this ruling makes good common sense and is consistent with Pennsylvania law, which provides that an accident victim should be fully and fairly compensated for all harm. If someone sustains injuries that will continue into the future, fairness dictates that they should be able to recover fair compensation to pay for those medical bills in full. To provide that the recovery for medical bills should be reduced would be unfair because it could result in a situation where the accident victim does not have all of the money needed to pay for future medical care.

Tim Rayne is a Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey.  For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies.  Tim has law offices in West Chester and Kennett Square and can be contacted at 6108400124 or trayne@macelree.com.  

[/column]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaches Groundbreaking Underinsurance Decision for Motorcycle Riders

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

In a groundbreaking decision benefiting motorcycle riders, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated a car insurance policy Household Vehicle Exclusion helping an injured motorcycle accident victim get the Underinsurance Coverage that he paid for.

What is Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage and Why is it Important?

In Pennsylvania, you can buy optional coverage on Car or Motorcycle insurance policies that protect you and your family from Uninsured or Underinsured drivers who cause accidents that injure you.  It’s good that such coverage exists given that many drivers let their car insurance lapse so they are Uninsured or have minimum coverage of $15,000 which cannot provide full compensation for a serious injury which means that they are Underinsured.  Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage (UM/UIM) is purchased from your own insurance company to protect you by providing compensation in such situations.

UM/UIM coverage can also be Stacked or Unstacked .  Stacking refers to the practice of combining the insurance coverage of individual vehicles to increase the total amount of coverage available to an injured person.

For example, if someone has multiple vehicles insured on more than one policy and chooses to Stack the coverage, then the sum of the coverage of both policies is available to compensate the injured party in the event of a serious accident.

Insurance companies charge extra premiums to allow for Stacking.

Supreme Court Decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Benefiting Motorcycle Riders

On January 23,2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached a monumental decision in the case of Gallagher v. GEICO relating to the Stacking of  UIM coverage which invalidated a “household vehicle exclusion” which attempted to disqualify a motorcycle rider from coverage.

The following are the relevant facts:

On August 22, 2012, Brian Gallagher was operating his motorcycle and was seriously injured when William Stouffer failed to stop his pick up at a stop sign.  Stouffer’s car insurance policy was insufficient to compensate Gallagher, so he chose to make claims on his Underinsurance Coverage with GEICO.

Gallagher had two separate UIM policies, one on his motorcycle providing Stacked coverage for $50,000 and another on his two cars which were covered on a separate GEICO policy providing $100,000 of Stacked UIM Coverage.  Gallagher opted for and paid for UIM Stacking on both policies.

GEICO paid Gallagher the UIM policy limit of $50,000 for the motorcycle policy, but refused to pay UIM on the car insurance policy citing a Household Vehicle Exclusion which stated: “This coverage does not apply to bodily injury while occupying or from being struck by a vehicle owned or leased by you or a relative that is not insured for Underinsured Motorist Coverage under this policy.”

Because Gallagher was injured while riding his motorcycle, which was insured on a different policy than his cars, GEICO claimed that the Household Vehicle Exclusion precluded him from receiving UIM coverage from the car policy.

Gallagher argued that the denial of Stacking was impermissible under Pennsylvania law because the insurance law required the signing of a valid Stacking Waiver in order to deny Stacking and he did not sign a Stacking waiver. Gallagher also argued that GEICO charged him extra insurance premiums for Stacking on both his motorcycle and car insurance policies, so it would be unfair to deny him the Stacking that he paid for.

To decide whether or not Stacking would apply, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court analyzed both Pennsylvania car insurance law and the language of the insurance policies.  The Court explained that, to the extent to which the GEICO insurance contracts conflicted with Pennsylvania car insurance law,  they would be invalid.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Household Vehicle Exclusion was void because it attempted to exclude UIM coverage when Gallagher had paid for the coverage and had not signed the mandatory Stacking waiver form required by Pennsylvania car insurance law.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that this decision changes the law in Pennsylvania because Household Vehicle Exclusions had previously been enforced in motorcycle accident cases and that the change in the law might disrupt the Pennsylvania car insurance market in the short term.

Nevertheless, the Court indicated that the insurance industry could employ its “considerable resources” to minimize the impact of the new holding.  The Court suggested that, for example, when a customer has multiple vehicles or policies, an insurance company could require disclosure of all such policies as part of the application process so that it could discover the full nature of the risk that it is insuring and modify its premiums accordingly.

For good news for Brian Gallagher is that, in the end, he will receive the UIM benefits that he paid GEICO for from both his motorcycle and car insurance policies.

Tim Rayne is a Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County Law Firm MacElree Harvey.  For over 20 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies.  For a Free Consultation regarding your legal rights after an accident in Pennsylvania, contact Tim at 6108400124 or trayne@macelree.com.  

[/column]

Travelers Forced To Double Car Insurance Coverage After Misinterpreting Pennsylvania Law

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Travelers Insurance Company was forced to double its policy holder’s Underinsurance Coverage from $100,000 to $200,000 when a Pennsylvania Federal Court Judge decided the case of Barnard v. Travelers and found that Travelers had misinterpreted Pennsylvania Car Insurance Law.  The Barnard v. Travelers case involved an important concept in Pennsylvania Car Insurance Coverage, the “Stacking” of Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage. The Judge concluded that Travelers’ failure to obtain a new Stacking Waiver when its policy holder bought additional coverage resulted in mandatory Stacking of the coverage.

What is Uninsured/Underinsured Car Insurance Coverage?

Uninsured/Underinsured (UM/UIM) is optional Pennsylvania Car Insurance coverage which is purchased to protect yourself and your family members who live with you from irresponsible drivers.  It provides compensation for you and your family for things like medical bills, lost wages, disability and pain and suffering based on the extent of your injuries and the coverage you have purchased, if the person who caused the accident has no insurance (Uninsured) or insufficient insurance to pay for all of the damages (Underinsured).

The lowest amount of UM/UIM coverage available is $15,000 and car insurance policies can provide up to $1 million or more in UM/UIM coverage.

It’s critical to purchase UM/UIM coverage because there are thousands of  drivers driving in Pennsylvania who have little or no car insurance coverage.

If you or a family member has been injured by an Uninsured or Underinsured driver and you had the foresight to purchase UM/UIM coverage, then you can be fully compensated for your injuries, regardless of the liability coverage of the person who caused the accident.

What is “Stacking”?

In a multi-vehicle car Insurance policy, “Stacking” is the act of multiplying the amount of UM/UIM coverage purchased by the number of vehicles on the policy.  For example, Stacking $100,000 of UM/UIM coverage for a 3 vehicle car insurance policy results in $300,000 of coverage.

In Pennsylvania, everyone who purchases UM/UIM coverage must be given the option of Stacking, and if a customer decides to reject Stacking, then the Insurance Company must get a Stacking Waiver signed which formally documents the choice not to Stack UM/UIM  benefits.

What Happened in the Barnard v. Travelers Case?

In Barnard v. Travelers, Michelle Barnard purchased Car Insurance from Travelers in 2007.  Her policy covered two cars and she bought $50,000 of Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage.  In 2007, Ms. Barnard signed a Stacking Waiver form.  In 2009, Ms. Barnard increased her UM/UIM Coverage to $100,000, but Travelers did not have her sign a new Stacking Waiver form.

In 2016, Ms. Barnard was seriously injured in a car accident caused by another driver who only had $15,000 of Liability Coverage.  Ms. Barnard submitted a claim for UIM Coverage with Travelers, but Travelers agreed to pay only $100,000 of UIM benefits, contending that her Stacking Waiver from 2007 still applied, even though she increased her UIM Coverage in 2009 and did not sign a new Stacking Waiver.

Litigation over whether or not the 2007 Stacking Waiver was valid despite the purchase of additional coverage in 2009 ensued.

What Did the Judge Conclude in Barnard v. Travelers?

The Judge concluded that the Barnard v. Travelers case turned on the meaning of the term “purchase” as used by the Pennsylvania UM/UIM Stacking Waiver Law.

The Judge stated that Pennsylvania law set out the conditions under which an insurance company must present the customer with an opportunity for a UM/UIM waiver by clearly stating the following:

Each named insured purchasing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for more than one vehicle under a policy shall be provided with an opportunity to waive the stacked limits of coverage….

The Judge reasoned that the language is mandatory and the critical issue is whether or not Ms. Barnard’s act of increasing the amount of her UM/UIM Coverage in 2009 constituted a “purchase” of coverage.  The Judge concluded that, in common usage, purchase means to buy – to acquire something by paying for it.  Using that definition of “purchase”, Ms. Barnard had decided to pay for a level of UM/UIM coverage in 2009 that was different from the 2007 coverage and that she paid for that increased coverage.  In short, she purchased more coverage, such that the law required a new Waiver of Stacking.

Because Travelers did not have Ms. Barnard sign a new Stacking Waiver, the old one was invalid which resulted in Stacked UM/UIM Coverage totaling $200,000, not $100,000.

The Lesson

The lesson to Pennsylvania Insurance Companies is that they need to err on the side of caution and make sure that all proper forms are executed before they deny coverage to their customers.  In this case, the law required a waiver for any purchase of UM/UIM coverage and Ms. Barnard doubling her coverage counted as a purchase.  Accordingly, if Travelers wanted Stacking to be waived, then it had to have the required waiver form signed.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident Lawyer who helps injured vicitims of Pennsylvania Car Accidents receive fair treatment from insurance companies.  Tim often handles Uninsured/Underinsured claims on behalf of his clients.  For over 20 years, Tim has been helping his clients receive fair treatment and compensation from insurance companies.  For more information about Car Insurance issues or for help after being injured in a Car Accident, contact Tim at trayne@macelree.com or 6108400124.  

[/column]

Sometimes Luck Prevents Limited Tort Problems

by

When you buy car insurance in Pennsylvania you are required to choose Full Tort or Limited Tort.  The difference between the two is not well understood and usually poorly explained by car insurance agents.  Simply put, with Limited Tort, your rights to compensation after a car accident are usually limited.  But, sometimes luck can prevent Limited Tort problems.

Full Tort protects your full legal rights to compensation after you are injured in a Pennsylvania car accident.  Full Tort costs about 20 percent more than Limited Tort, but with Limited Tort, your legal rights to recover compensation are usually limited.

With Full Tort, the compensation that you can recover from the responsible driver includes compensation for lost wages, medical bills, out-of-pocket expenses and money for your pain and suffering and disability.

With Limited Tort,  you can recover money for your lost wages, medical bills and out-of-pocket expenses, but usually you are precluded from recovering any compensation for your pain and suffering and disability.

Despite this general rule, sometimes an exception applies and you can recover full compensation even if you chose Limited Tort.  One of those exceptions is if the person who caused the accident was driving a vehicle registered in another state.  In Chester County, we live close to Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey, so it is somewhat common for Limited Tort policy holders to be able to recover full compensation because of this exception.

As a Car Accident Lawyer who helps injured victims of Pennsylvania car accidents, I strongly recommend that you purchase Full Tort, not Limited Tort, so that you do not have to rely on luck to get full and fair compensation after being injured in a Pennsylvania car accident.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer with law offices in Kennett Square, West Chester and Doylestown Pennsylvania.  Contact Tim at trayne@macelree.com or 610 840 0124  with any car insurance questions or to learn about your legal rights after a car accident.  

 

Pennsylvania Car Accident Attorney Explains When Limited Tort Is Irrelevant?

by

When you buy car insurance in Pennsylvania, you have to choose Full Tort or Limited Tort.  Full Tort is more expensive coverage but preserves your Full Legal Rights to Compensation after a car accident caused by someone else.   Limited Tort is cheaper coverage, but it limits your Legal Rights to Compensation.

Generally, with Limited Tort, your legal rights to compensation are limited to Economic Damages and no compensation (with certain exceptions) is available for Non-Economic damages like Pain and Suffering.

However, in certain cases, it’s irrelevant whether you were covered by Limited Tort and you still have your Full Legal Rights to Compensation even though you chose Limited Tort on your Pennsylvania Car Insurance.

Here is a list of circumstances under which you have Full Tort rights even with a Limited Tort insurance policy:

* If you were injured as a pedestrian or as an occupant of a vehicle of something other than a private passenger vehicle like a heavy truck, taxi or bus;

* If you were injured by someone who later is convicted of or pleads guilty to driving under the influence;

*If you were injured by someone driving an out-of-state vehicle;

*If you were injured by an uninsured driver;

*If the person who caused the crash intended to injure you or himself;

*If you suffered an injury resulting in death, serious impairment of a body function or permanent serious disfigurement.

In all of the above situations, a person covered by Limited Tort still has Full Legal Rights to Compensation.  Nevertheless, to protect your Full Legal Rights in all situations, you should always choose Full Tort, not Limited Tort.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident and Personal Injury Attorney who helps Pennsylvania car accident victims receive fair compensation from injurance companies either through settlement of their car accident claim or a verdict at trial.  Tim has law offices and advises Personal Injury and Car Accident victims in Kennett Square and West Chester, Pennsylvania.  Contact Tim Rayne at 610 840 0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at https://timraynelaw.com.