Should I Choose Full Tort Or Limited Tort Automobile Insurance Coverage?
January 5th, 2012One of the major choices individuals face in Pennsylvania when purchasing automobile insurance is the question of whether they should choose the “full tort” or “limited tort” option. Frequently an insurance agent may provide only a brief description of the differences between the “full tort” and “limited tort” options that simply stating that a “full tort” insurance policy will have a more expensive insurance premium than a “limited tort” insurance policy. Unfortunately, while choosing the less expensive insurance policy premium may save you money in the short term, it may be a decision that you will sadly live to regret if you are later injured in an automobile accident.
When a person is injured in a motor vehicle accident, they frequently will suffer two different types of harm. First, the person may suffer what the law calls “economic damages”. “Economic” damages are those types of damages that many people commonly consider to be “out of pocket” expenses such as medical bills, lost wages or salary from missing work, property repair costs, etc. suffered as a result of the accident. Second the person may suffer what the law calls “non-economic” damages. “Non-economic” damages are those harms suffered by an injured person whose monetary value cannot be easily and objectively determined by a court. “Non-economic” damages include items such as pain and suffering, loss of life’s pleasures, etc. as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
A person injured in a motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania frequently can file a lawsuit to recover “economic” damages from the party that
caused the accident. However, Pennsylvania law imposes strict rules on when and how an injured person may file a lawsuit to recover non-economic damages for their pain, suffering, or other ongoing difficulties in life that result from an motor vehicle accident depending upon whether the injured person is covered by a “full tort” or “limited tort” insurance option.
With certain exceptions, under Pennsylvania law, a person who selects the “limited tort” option generally may recover non-economic damages only if he can establish that he has suffered a “serious injury” as that term is defined by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Under Pennsylvania law, only the following types of injuries are considered to be serious enough to permit a “limited tort” selector to recover non-economic damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident:
- Death;
- Permanent serious disfigurement; or
- A serious impairment of body function.
When determining whether or not a person has suffered a “serious impairment of body function” that would permit the recovery of non- economic damages, a court will consider the following factors:
- The particular body function impaired;
- The extent of the impairment;
- The length of time the impairment lasted, and;
- The treatment required to correct the impairment.
Although many people may believe that if they suffer injuries such as ongoing pain, difficulty moving, an inability to do all of the same things they previously did, etc. after an motor vehicle accident they must necessarily have suffered a “serious injury” that will permit them to recover non-economic damages this belief is incorrect. Although each case is judged on its individual merits, it has not been uncommon for courts to find that individuals who claimed to suffer from ongoing and long term aches and pains or other difficulties as a result of a motor vehicle accident did not suffer a “serious injury” that would permit them to recover non-economic damages to compensate them for their pain and suffering. As a result, it is entirely possible for a person to suffer from long term and possibly permanent aches, pains or other difficulties due to an motor vehicle accident and never be compensated for their pain and suffering if they chose the “limited tort” option on their automobile insurance policy in an effort to save money on the cost of the insurance policy premium. Sadly the long term cost that an individual will suffer from the pain and suffering caused by a motor vehicle frequently will far outweigh any “savings” in reduced insurance policy premiums that were obtained by selecting the “limited tort” option.
In contrast, the “full tort” automobile insurance option is easily described and understood. If the injured person is covered by a “full tort” motor vehicle insurance policy, that person has a full and unrestricted right to file a lawsuit to recover all non-economic damages suffered due to a motor vehicle accident. Put simply, an individual with “full tort” coverage does not need to worry about whether or not he has suffered from a serious enough injury before seeking to be compensated for any pain or suffering caused by an motor vehicle accident. Thus, while a “full tort” selection may cost you more money in the short term due to increased premiums, it’s a choice that provides you with the maximum amount of protection if you are ever unlucky enough to be injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Ultimately the decision of whether you should choose “full tort” or “limited tort” motor vehicle insurance coverage must be made based upon your own individual circumstances. However, you should always keep in mind that while the selection of a “limited tort” insurance policy may save you money in insurance premium costs, that choice may cause you substantial regret if you later suffer injuries a court does not believe are “serious” in a motor vehicle accident.
Attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr
November 22nd, 2011MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM CA
MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM
THE TOP TRIAL LAWYERS IN AMERICA
DONALD F. COSTELLO, PRESIDENT TELEPHONE (856) 792-6100
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD F. COSTELLO FAX (858) 702-6 101
P.O. BOX 2884
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 02014
PRESS RELEASE
Date: November 14, 2011 Del Mar, California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr
Named To Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Contact
Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr Kozioff Stoudt Attorneys
2640 Westview Drive
Wyomissing PA 19610
Telephone: 610.670.2552
Firm website: www.kozloffstoudt.com
The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is pleased to announce that attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr of Wyomissing PA has been certified as a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.
Mr. Schuchman is presently a Life Member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements. The organization was founded in 1993 and there are approximately 4000 members located throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members. Forum membership acknowledges excellence in advocacy, and provides members with a national network of experienced colleagues for professional referral and information exchange in major cases. Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case in which their client has received a verdict, award or settlement in the amount of one million dollars or more.
Members of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum must be Life Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case which has resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict, award or settlement. Mr. Schuchman is a member of both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.
Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr is a graduate of The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. He is a trial advocate for clients who suffer serious personal injuries and property damage, who have insurance concerns or are embroiled in business or construction disputes.
For further information regarding membership and qualifications, see www.MillonDollarAdvocates.co,n. The Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum was established in 2007. There are members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (established 1993) who may have had multi-million dollar cases but who have not applied for membership in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum although they may be qualified. Membership in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum is not Intended to imply that a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum may not have had multi-million dollar cases.
MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM, LLC
P.O. BOX 2684 DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92014 TEL 858.792.6 100
WWW.MILLIONDOLLARADVOCATES.COM
PREPARING A MARRIED COUPLE TO PAY FOR NURSING HOME COSTS
October 24th, 2011The thought of putting your spouse into a nursing home is an unpleasant thought which is only magnified by the reality of how much it costs. Local nursing home costs generally range from $8,000 to $10,000, depending on the level of care and medications you need. Those kinds of numbers are petrifying to most couples, even with the knowledge that Medicaid will eventually pay for those nursing home costs. Many people believe that they need to deplete all or most of their savings in order to qualify for benefits which obviously would be a negative result for the healthy “community spouse” who needs to be able to support the remainder of their life. Unfortunately, the “system” does not do the best job in educating and advising the married couple what will or can happen when one of them is about to enter a nursing home. If you are armed with the proper knowledge and engage in some relatively easy planning, the process can not only be much less frightening but also not nearly as financially devastating as it needs to be.
Medicaid is a federal program administered by the states that provides medical benefits to those with limited assets. If the nursing home patient spouse’s income and resources fall below established minimums the patient spouse will qualify for Medicaid and all nursing home expenses will be paid by the government. The rules for married couples include certain “spousal impoverishment” provisions which in theory are designed to keep the community spouse at the same standard of living that he or she enjoyed prior to admitting their loved one into a nursing home.
Generally, the process proceeds as follows: When the patient spouse is admitted to the nursing home the couple will be given a packet of Medicaid information which includes a one page Resource Assessment form. This form needs to be filled out showing the value of all assets owned by the couple either individually or jointly with values as of the date of admittance. The Department of Public Welfare then uses these amounts to determine what assets are protected for the community spouse and what assets need to be spent down in order for the patient to qualify for Medicaid. First, any excluded assets are removed from the calculation and will forever remain assets of the community spouse (as long as the assets, such as the personal residence, are re-titled to the community spouse’s name only). Excluded assets include the personal residence of the couple with a value up to $500,000, one automobile, the tangible personal property owned by both spouses, any qualified accounts (401k or IRA) owned by the community spouse, a patient spouse whole life insurance policy up to $1,500 cash value, term life insurance on either spouse, and pre-paid funeral accounts for both spouses. Once all of these assets are subtracted from the Resource Assessment, the remaining individual and joint owned assets are added up and divided by two. Half of those assets are considered the protected share of the community spouse up to a maximum amount of approximately $110,000. The other half is earmarked for the patient spouse and based upon the patient spouse’s income either $8,000 or $2,400, is exempted and the remaining balance must be “spent down” in order for the patient spouse to receive Medicaid benefits.
As you can imagine, some couples are not financial ruined by this process especially if the community spouse has sizeable qualified accounts. But even better news is that with proper timing the “spend down” assets can be quickly spent on items which will benefit both the patient spouse as well as the community spouse in order to make the community spouse’s life more comfortable. For example, these monies can be spent on pre-paid funerals for both husband and wife, a new car for the community spouse which has a warranty, major repairs and improvements to the personal residence to not only help the community spouse save money in the future but to add value to the home for when it may be sold or inherited, paying off debts of either spouse such as a mortgage, car loan or credit cards, taking a vacation, and just about anything which benefits either spouse and is not a gift to a third party. In some cases, if timed properly the patient’s “spend down” assets are spent almost entirely on the community spouse while paying very little to the nursing home as a private pay patient.
It is important to at least consult an attorney as early as possible in the process so that your individual assets can be analyzed and a simple plan can be developed in order to best protect the community spouse. In some situations having representation throughout the entire approval process is essential, such as when the couple owns a vacation home which they want to remain in the family or if the community spouse’s income is extremely low and you are worried that you won’t be able to make ends meet once the patient spouse passes away and Social Security and pension income stops.
Nursing home administrators or even DPW do not always or cannot inform you of all of your rights and options in these situations, therefore many couples make incorrect and irreversible financial moves which ultimately reduce the amount of money the community spouse was entitled to keep. In conclusion, if you believe that you or your spouse may face a nursing home in the future or you are already in that situation consult an attorney who is experienced in Medicaid representation. He can help you do everything possible to protect the maximum amount of assets for the community spouse.
Please consult the Office of Kozloff Stoudt to discuss this matter or any other matter regarding your Estate Planning needs. You can visit us at www.kozloffstoudt.com.
Jeffrey Elliott to speak at St. Ignatius RC Church
October 14th, 2011Jeffrey Elliott has been invited by the pastor of St. Ignatius RC Church in West Lawn, Monsignor James Treston, to address the audience during this year’s annual Veterans Day celebration and ecumenical service at the parish on the evening of November 9, 2011 at 7:30pm. The service at the church is intended to recognize all those from the Berks County area who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States or who are presently serving, in both active and reserve components. Jeff has been invited to be the Principal Speaker for the event as a senior army officer and member of the parish. Jeff is a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, an Army Colonel, and a lawyer with the Judge Advocate General Corps. He is the State Judge Advocate, the senior judge advocate or lawyer in the state. In that capacity he provides legal advice directly to the Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and his Directorates, and is responsible for supervising all legal services provided to soldiers and commanders of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard
Municipal Law Update: Proposed Government Bid Limits Package
September 15th, 2011Earlier this year Representative Mark K. Keller (R – Perry and part of Franklin Counties) sponsored the Government Bid Limits Package to overhaul the manner in which governmental entities (including municipalities, counties, school districts and the Commonwealth) bid contracts. Since 1990, State and local governments have had to seek at least three (3) telephonic quotes for purchases greater than $4,000 and accept bids for purchases starting at $10,000. While the intent of this process is to encourage competition among governmental contractors and to guard against patronage, this process can be very time consuming and expensive. Further, the dollar thresholds that were set in 1990 have not accounted for the impact of inflation on governmental purchasing over the last twenty-one (21) years.
Generally, the Government Bid Limits Package seeks to increase the bidding requirement threshold from $10,000 to $25,000. Similarly, the threshold for quote gathering would be increased to $10,000; meaning that governmental purchases of $9,999.99 or less would be exempt from the bidding process. Additionally, the proposed Bid Limits Package would task the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry with periodically adjusting the bidding thresholds to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
While the bidding exemption of contracts for less than $10,000 may be distressing to some who fear this may lead to an increase in governmental waste and favoritism, the prohibition against large“piecemeal projects”, the Sunshine Act and other legislative protections should minimize these concerns.
As of the publication of this article, the Bid Limits Packaage was passed by the House and has been referred to the State Senate’s Local Government Committee for consideration.
April 28th, 2011
April 18th, 2011
Amended Voucher Bill Clears Senate Appropriations Committee
April 13th, 2011With a 15-11 vote, this afternoon the Senate Appropriations Committee approved SB 1, the taxpayer-funded tuition voucher bill, after adding amendment that would greatly expand the program to allow children from middle-income families to be eligible to receive vouchers to attend private and religious schools. A final vote on the Senate floor may occur as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday.
PSBA is reviewing the language and will provide a detailed analysis soon. At this time, here are highlights of the omnibus amendment:
New “Middle-Income Scholarship Program” – As amended, vouchers are no longer targeted just for the poorest students whose family income does not exceed 130% of the federal poverty line. The new language makes vouchers available to children whose family income is at 130% – 300% of the poverty level. The new “middle-income scholarship program” would be available beginning in 2014-15, the fourth year of the voucher program.
Cap on Costs – The amendment would set a cap of $250 million beginning in the third year of the voucher program for costs for vouchers to low-income children who do not reside on the attendance boundary of an underachieving school. Language here clarifies that this provision does not limit the amount of vouchers that may be awarded to students who were eligible in the first and second years, or who live within the boundary of an underachieving school.
New Definition of “Persistently Lowest Achieving School” – The definition is revised and expanded to include the 144 schools already designated and any other school with the exception of those who met federal Adequate Yearly Progress requirements in at least one of the two most recent school years. (Charter and cyber charter schools and area vocational technical schools remain excluded) In addition, the bill requires all schools not excluded to be ranked based upon their most recent assessment data.
Lottery Selection for Public School Transfers – School districts that accept voucher students would be required to randomly select them from a pool of names, rather than the first-come-first-served basis that was under SB1.
Nonpublic Schools Administer Tests of Their Choice – The amendment establishes a weak system of “accountability” by requiring nonpublic schools to administer a test of their choosing to voucher students (only) in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. The test may be a nationally normed standardized achievement test, or it can simply be “an assessment.” The nonpublic school must release the test results to the parents of the student, and post aggregate test results on its web site (if it has one), provided that the results would not reveal the identity of any student.
Limit on Laws Applicable to Nonpublic Schools – New language restricts the laws private schools have to follow to limit them to the ones that are in effect “on the date prior to the effective date of this section.”
New Pilot Public-to-Public Choice Program – Beginning in the fourth year, a public school choice demonstration program would be established to provide vouchers for public school students who wish to attend a nonresident public school. A district could not receive more than $500,000.
Other Voucher News:
Today PSBA released the results of a new poll pertaining to accountability standards of private, religious and other nonpublic schools enrolling students with a taxpayer-funded tuition voucher. According to the poll results, most Pennsylvanians feel private schools must meet certain accountability standards if they take public tax dollars in the form of tuition vouchers.
The survey asked participants if a tuition voucher law passed in Pennsylvania, would they favor or oppose private, religious and parochial schools that accept tuition vouchers being required to: 1) give the same tests as required of public schools; 2) report graduation rates and student achievement scores as required of public schools; and 3) report the same financial audits and financial reporting requirements as public schools.
The results show:
- More than three quarters (75.9%) strongly favored or somewhat favored requiring achievement tests of private schools that accept vouchers. Only 23.8% opposed such a requirement.
- Nearly 82% of participants strongly or somewhat favored requiring private schools to report graduation and student achievement rates if they accept tuition vouchers. Only 18% were opposed.
- The vast majority (88%) strongly or somewhat favored private schools that accept tuition vouchers be required to report financial data. Only 12% opposed such a requirement.
Overwhelmingly, the poll results show that the public feels private schools need to be held to the same accountability standards as public schools if they are taking public dollars in the form of tuition vouchers.
What You Can Do:
SB 1 now goes to the Senate floor. Please call or email your senator immediately and ask him or her to vote “NO” on SB 1. In addition, it is not too early to contact your House members.
Also – please contact the parents in your school district to tell them about this bill and how it will impact your district, particularly in light of the budget crisis and reduced funding that will lead to less services and larger class sizes for your students.
PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT REQUIRES BANKS TO PROVE THEY OWN THE MORTGAGES ON WHICH THEY ARE FORECLOSING
March 10th, 2011The explosion of sub-prime lending in the early 2000’s has been followed by collapse in the housing market and an epidemic of home foreclosures. Most of these mortgages were transferred from the original lender, packaged with other mortgages and sold to investors. Unfortunately, when a bank seeks to foreclose on a mortgage loan in default, the bank can have difficulty proving it is the owner of the mortgage. The banks also have difficulty finding payment records, copies of monthly billing statements, and reconciliations of escrow accounts.
In a recent case, Wells Fargo Bank v. Lupori, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has put mortgage holders on notice that they must be able to prove they actually own the mortgage and have the right to foreclose. In this case, Wells Fargo alleged that the mortgage loan had originally been issued by First Franklin, a division of National City Bank and had been transferred to First Franklin Financial Corporation. Wells Fargo then alleged that it was the owner of the mortgage. Wells Fargo did not explain how it acquired the right to foreclose on the mortgage.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court found this to be insufficient. The court was not satisfied with Wells Fargo’s bare assertion that it was now the owner of the mortgage. Instead, the Superior Court ruled that a bank seeking to foreclose must allege a complete chain of title from the original issuer of the mortgage loan to the bank seeking to foreclose.
Kozloff Stoudt’s banking and commercial litigation departments assist mortgage lenders seeking to navigate the mortgage foreclosure process throughout southeastern Pennsylvania.
New Tools and Opportunities for Advancing Sound Land Use
February 1st, 2011
