If a Plaintiff has selected limited tort coverage, he or she is precluded from recovering non-economic damage in a subsequent lawsuit pursuant to the PA Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”). The MVFRL however provides an exception to this rule when the Plaintiff sustains a “serious injury.” “Serious injury” is generally defined by the MVFRL as “a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the determination of what constitutes a “serious injury” is qualitative and not quantitative. When making this determination, the Courts look at:

1) What type of function, if any, was impaired because of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident?2) Was the impairment of the bodily function serious?

The focus is not on the injuries, but on how the injuries affected a particular body function. Generally, medical testimony will be needed to establish the existence, extent and permanency of the impairment. An impairment need not be permanent to be serious. In determining whether the impairment is serious several factors should be considered:

1) The extent of the impairment;2) The length of time the impairment lasted;3) The treatment required to correct the impairment, and4) Any other relevant factors.

If the Plaintiff’s injuries do not significantly affect his or her bodily function then the person has not sustained a “serious injury” to satisfy the exception to limited tort.

As the “serious injury” determination is fact specific, it is left to be determined by the Courts on a case-by-case basis. Originally, the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts have held that the “serious injury” determination should be made at the earliest possible stage of the litigation. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected this standard and has held that the “serious injury” determination should be made by using a traditional summary judgment standard. Currently, summary judgment on the limited tort issue is only granted in the clearest of cases. 

What It Means to You

Whether the “serious injury” exception to a limited tort election is satisfied can greatly affect how a case is litigated. Generally in motor vehicle accident cases, a Plaintiff will rely on the records of his or her treating physician. If the Plaintiff relies only on his or her medical records, the treating physician’s expert testimony will be limited to what is contained in the medical records produced. It is therefore imperative that the Plaintiff’s medical records are evaluated promptly to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to establish a “serious injury.” While the Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment on the limited tort issue should only be granted in the clearest of cases, the Court also acknowledged that expert medical testimony is required to establish an impairment of bodily function and the existence, extent and permanency of said impairment. Medical records that do not contain these opinions may serve as a basis for summary judgment on the limited tort issue.