The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a key decision regarding limited tort auto policies, despite referring to that same decision as “just plain wrong.” In Varner-Mort v. Kapfhammer, the plaintiff, Donna Varner-Mort was in a car accident on May 6, 2009 and waited until June 27, 2011 to file a complaint against defendant, Bridget Kapfhammer. Varner-Mort’s auto insurance policy was for limited tort, meaning that Varner-Mort could not recover for the non-economic damages such as pain and suffering without establishing a “serious injury.”

According to Pennsylvania law, a serious injury is “a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1702. In Varner-Mort’s pleadings, she alleged that she did not realize her injury qualified as a serious injury until she had her first MRI on August 13, 2009, a date within the statute of limitations. Kapfhammer brought a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, saying that Varner-Mort was on notice of the injury.

Ultimately, the Superior Court overturned the trial court’s decision, ruling that the precedent from Walls v. Scheckler must be followed despite being “just plain wrong.” 700 A.2d 532, 533. In Walls, the plaintiff held a limited tort policy and at the time of her car accident, appeared to have only minor bruises on her face and jaw. Only later did the plaintiff lose the normal use of her jaw. The Walls court ruled that the statute of limitations in this instance began to toll at the time she realized the severity of her jaw injury. The Superior Court upheld this precedent, overturning the motion for summary judgment.

Thanks to Thalia Staikos for her contribution to this post.  Please write to Mike Bono for more information.