Is it true that the injury choice for Tort or No Fault is not tied to the vehicle, but is an individual decision?

The statement is indeed true. In the context of tort and no-fault insurance systems, the choice between pursuing a tort claim or relying on no-fault benefits is primarily an individual decision made by the injured party rather than being solely linked to the vehicle itself. This distinction is important because it emphasizes that the decision is based on personal circumstances, preferences, or particular legal considerations relating to the case at hand.

In a tort system, the injured party typically has the right to seek compensation from the at-fault driver for damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This allows for a more extensive claim but requires proving liability.

Conversely, in a no-fault system, individuals claim benefits directly from their own insurance company, regardless of who caused the accident. This system aims to expedite compensation for medical and related expenses but generally limits recovery for pain and suffering unless certain thresholds are met.

Thus, the choice between these two systems reflects personal circumstances and considerations like the severity of injuries, the individual's financial situation, or how their state’s laws structure tort and no-fault insurance options, rather than being automatically dictated by the type of vehicle involved.