The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a new regulation entitled the “Renovation and Repainting Rule”. The new RRP Rule was written to deal with hazards created by renovation, repair and painting that disrupts lead-based paint in “targetted housing” and “child occupied facilties”. New requirements are written into the rule for training renovators, certifying how the lead-paint was disturbed, and dust minimization and work practices. The rule applies to renovators, electricians, HVAC specialists, plumbers, painters, electricians, drywall intallers, insulation isntallers, siding contractors and many other trademen who disrupt more than six square feet of lead paint. The rule also appplies to landlords, builders, and education service providers. Target housing  are pre-1978 homes, unless a child under six is present in the home and thus would be included in the definition. Child occupied facilities are pre-1978 buildings visited regulalrly by the same child under six, or at least two days per week, with each visit lasting at least three hours. Child occupied facilities include day care centers, preschools and kindergarten. Specific information regarding the renovation must be distributed before work is started by signs being posted and pamphlets mailed. The rule does not cover “rapairs and maintenance activities” which cover less than six square feet of interior space or twenty feet of exterior space. Window replacement, however, is not exempt regardless of the square footage involved. Failure to follow the rule could impose a fine of $37,500.00 per violation, civil liability, and potential litigation.

Like most auto insurance law, the choice between Full and Limited Tort insurance coverage can be a confusing one.  But, the implications are great.

With Full Tort coverage, a driver who has been in an accident is able to recover monies through litigation for both economic damages (i.e. property damage, lost wages, etc.) and

pain and suffering.  This means that should the driver be injured in an accident through someone else’s negligence, they can potentially obtain a recovery representing the full extent of the damage done in the accident.  This type of coverage is especially helpful when an auto accident causes long-term chronic pain.

Limited Tort coverage is a bit more, well, limited.  In exchange for lower monthly premiums, a driver with Limited Tort insurance coverage gives up the right to sue for pain and suffering.  This means that a driver can only recover economic damages like damage to the vehicle, medical expenses immediately resulting from the accident, or lost wages.

There are, however, some exceptions that allow an accident victim to overcome the restrictions of Limited Tort coverage.  For instance, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) allows drivers with Limited Tort policies to sue for pain and suffering if they have sustained a “serious injury” resulting in “death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement.” (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1702

)  In practice, this exception has generally not included soft-tissue injuries like sprains or even most bone or head injuries.

In recent weeks, however, there has been some indication that courts are willing to consider awarding monies for pain and suffering to individuals with Limited Tort coverage whose injuries do not, at face value, appear to meet the “serious injury” threshold described in the statute.  In Harlan v. Pennsylvania State Police, et al., (PICS Case No. 10-1506 (C.P. Pa. [Lawrence County] March 4, 2010)

, a judge ruled that a Limited Tort plaintiff’s case should not be dismissed, even though he did not suffer the types of injuries usually necessary to overcome the restrictions on Limited Tort.  According to Pennsylvania Law Weekly

, the plaintiff “suffered injuries to his left arm, left shoulder, left wrist, neck, back, and head.”  Months after the accident, the plaintiff underwent three surgeries, missing a total of five months of work.  He continued to experience pain and loss of feeling on his left side, and as a result was limited in his ability to perform “daily tasks including driving and mowing the lawn.”  The court found that because the plaintiff’s household and recreational activities have been altered for the foreseeable future, it is up to a jury to decide whether or not this constitutes a “serious injury” under the MVFRL. (Pennsylvania Law Weekly

, March 30, 2010, p. 17-18).

Because the potential for a major financial recovery is often diminished under the MVFRL, many attorneys are unwilling to pursue Limited Tort cases.  Jules Zacher, Esquire, however does

accept Limited Tort cases, provided they have legal merit.  If you have been injured in an auto accident, please visit the page of this website, and fill out a questionnaire.