Is it necessary to have full tort on your auto insurance?
Question:
Answer:
If your referring to fire and theft it would depend on how old the car is.
But if it's liability I would put the most you can afford!
Forget that 15000/30000 that would not cover a ride in the meat wagon.
In most places, you have to in order to be legal.
Even if not required, it certainly would be smart!
Ok, if you're talking in the states that ask on your auto policy if you want full tort vs limited tort regarding injury, here's what it means:
Limited/verbal tort: Cheaper option. Means if you are hurt in a future car accident you do not have the right to make an injury claim for "pain and suffering" unless your injuries are permenant, disfiguring, and severe, as defined by local statute. This applies regardless of fault. Let me say that again, it's important. If you're limited tort, and you're hurt in an accident even if it's not your fault at all, you CANNOT make a claim for any extra monies over your bills if your injuries are minor. Your medical bills and actual, hard money out-of-pocket expenses are still covered. If you just have a soft-tissue type injury, for example, that will resolve with treatment, you can't make a claim. If you have facial scarring or broken bones that have to be pinned, you would breach the threshold and have the right to make the claim.
Full tort/no threshold: More expensive. Means if you are hurt in the car accident you have the right to make an injury claim for "pain and suffering" on top of your medical bills, regardless of how minor your injury is. It doesn't guarantee payment, it just gives you the legal right to ask for it.
EVERY INSURANCE AGENT in a state that requires you to chose from the above should not only explain it to you in detail but should tell you the price difference between the two on your policy. You are not required to have either option, it's a personal choice.
Hope this helped.
More Questions & Answers...