In Miami, Ana walks away from a low-speed sideswipe with bruises and a $12,000 hospital bill. Her Personal Injury Protection (PIP) policy pays only $8,000 and bars her from seeking pain-and-suffering damages. Two thousand miles north in Riverdale, New York, Carlos is injured in an identical collision and—because the state’s “serious injury” threshold is met—receives a comprehensive award that includes emotional harm.

The difference is not the steering wheel, it is the legal lottery. With no national standard for traffic-injury compensation, the economic outcome of a crash depends first and foremost on where it happens. This article explains how the lack of a single nationwide framework creates significant disparities for victims.

Overview of the United States’ Fragmented System

Every state sets its menu of coverages, deadlines, and rights. In practice, two broad models coexist:

• No-Fault. A PIP policy pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault; lawsuits for non-economic losses are allowed only if a statutory verbal or monetary threshold is surpassed.
• At-Fault. The injured party must prove the other driver’s negligence, but there is no statutory ceiling on pain-and-suffering claims.

As the New York State Bar Association accident-victim guide notes, motorists must master a legal puzzle the instant they cross a state line. For victims, the mosaic produces opposite realities: in one jurisdiction, a moderate injury may be fully covered, while in another, the same harm may leave unpaid bills.

Fault vs. No-Fault

Of the 50 states, 38 are at-fault and 12 are strict no-fault. This classification works as follows:

• Texas (at-fault): Prove responsibility and recover medical…