I notice over and over again that consumers have no concept of what they are purchasing when they buy limited tort insurance.   The fundamental difference between limited tort and full tort auto insurance is the right to sue for pain and suffering.  The insurance industry wants you to buy limited tort insurance because you give up your right to sue for pain and suffering in the typical auto accident.  And when you feel great and want to save money, that seems like a bargain.  Interestingly enough, the insurance industry is required to advise you in writing of the cost comparison between limited and full tort insurance.  Yet of all the cost comparison forms that I have reviewed for clients not one has had the cost figures filled out.  Instead there are blanks where the costs would go.  Why don’t they fill this out?  Because for a hundred, or maybe a couple hundred dollars more per year, the consumer would have the right to sue for pain and suffering, which can amount to as much as $50,000 or more.   So limited tort is a much safer bet for the insurance company.  Why else would they refuse to fill out the cost comparisons required of them by Pennsylvania State Law?  Think of this before you make that limited tort election, and if you made it blindly before, change your election to full tort now.   It is too late to do so when you have a herniated disk from a rear-ender and the insurance company is arguing that it was not a serious accident and trying to avoid paying anything besides the cost of repairing your car even though you can barely get out of bed.