Pennsylvania Minimum Motor Vehicle Insurance Limits Behind the Times
You are driving home from work at 7 p.m. on a nice clear fall evening, excited to get home to see your spouse and children before they go to sleep. You are only two minutes away from your house, and you stop at the red traffic light that you always seem to miss just before arriving home.
November 28, 2017 at 09:00 AM
5 minute read
You are driving home from work at 7 p.m. on a nice clear fall evening, excited to get home to see your spouse and children before they go to sleep. You are only two minutes away from your house, and you stop at the red traffic light that you always seem to miss just before arriving home.
After a long day at the office, having a home cooked meal with your family is the perfect remedy. Unfortunately, the person operating his car behind you went out drinking after work, had too many drinks, and crashes at full speed into the back of your vehicle. You sustain neck and low back injuries that eventually require surgery, and your entire life is turned upside down. At least the person that rear-ended you had car insurance, so you should be fairly compensated for your injuries, right? Not necessarily.
Pennsylvania remains behind the majority of states regarding bodily injury and uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance minimums. Despite efforts for several years to raise these minimum insurance limits (which have been in place since 1974), the minimum bodily injury liability limits are $15,000 per person/$30,000 per accident. Most states have at least $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident of bodily injury insurance minimums, including New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Ohio. In 2011, Maryland passed a law raising their minimum bodily injury liability requirements to $30,000 per person/$60,000 per accident. In April of 2017, I testified in Delaware in front of the full Senate and committee in the House of Representatives (testimony in front of the full House of Representatives was not necessary) regarding House Bill 114, which sought to increase the bodily injury limits from $15,000 per person/$30,000 per accident to $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. The bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was signed by Gov. John Carney on July 13. This new law allows 6 months for insurance companies to change their policies, and by Dec. 13, all motor vehicle insurance policies written in Delaware will have minimum bodily injury policy limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. Consequently, because Delaware requires that uninsured/underinsured motorist policy limits be offered at the minimum level of the bodily injury policy limits, all uninsured/underinsured motorist policy limit minimums will also start at $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident as of Dec. 13.
Honestly, even $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident of bodily injury and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage will not adequately protect you or anyone in your car if catastrophic injuries are sustained in an accident. But the goal is to increase insurance minimums as high as possible while still maintaining the balance in premium increases to make car insurance as affordable as possible. The majority of states (33 at this time) have minimum bodily injury requirements of at least $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. Any state with less coverage has simply not caught up with inflation, the increasing costs of medical expenses, and the standard of living. Moreover, raising minimum insurance requirements will benefit the state, the federal government, private health insurance, medical providers, and the victims injured in motor vehicle accidents. Higher insurance policies result in more money available, which in turn provide a larger pot of money to pay all interested parties affected by the loss.
For example, state Medicaid, Medicare or private health insurance usually cover medical bills for treatment incurred by the injured party once personal injury protection benefits (only a $5,000 minimum in Pennsylvania) have been exhausted. These health providers may have a lien that they attempt to recover out of the third party case, but if insurance money is limited, there may be nothing for them to recover. With more money available following a loss, the lienholders will have more to recover. States are struggling each year to balance their budgets, and if money can be reimbursed to Medicaid, this will help States when it comes down to crunch time. Similarly, medical providers with outstanding balances will also have more money to collect for treatment rendered to the car accident victims.
Most importantly, having a larger sum of money available will help fairly compensate injured victims. To be clear, innocent victims of car accidents will not receive a windfall simply because of more insurance available. Rather, people will get closer to what they deserve to fairly compensate their injuries.
Opponents (the insurance industry) will argue (as they did in Delaware) that raising premiums will mean less people purchasing car insurance and more uninsured drivers. However, Maryland raised their insurance minimums in 2011 and has not seen a noticeable increase in uninsured drivers. In Delaware, the increase in premiums will be minimal, and the amount of increased coverage is significant. In Pennsylvania, with a population of 12.8 million people and multiple major high-speed roadways stretching across the state, the risk for more significant accidents and injury is even higher. There is no reason for insurance minimums to be consistent with the economic state of the 1970s and 1980s. New Jersey continues to have low minimum bodily injury limits as well, but they are in the minority. Pennsylvania must fight to increase insurance minimums to be on par with the rest of the country.
Lawrence Spiller Kimmel is managing partner of Kimmel Carter in Delaware. He focuses his practice on personal injury and workers' compensation law. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Section: 2024 Labor & Employment/Workers' Compensation
Insurers Are Misusing IMEs to Prematurely Cut Off Injured Workers' Benefits
7 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250