Court Opinion

ID: 9783592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:49:53.842841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:26.382496
License: Public Domain

WILLS, J., concurring. I concur. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the definition of the term “victim” in our restitution statute is broad enough to include an | ^insurance company. I write separately, however, to point out that under our statutes, restitution is limited to a victim’s “actual economic loss.” See Ark.Code Ann. § 5 — 4—205(b)(1) (Repl. 2006). “Actual economic loss” is not defined in the statutes, and I question how that figure is to be determined when the “victim” is an insurance company. For example, in this case, the circuit court ordered appellant Brad Singleton to pay State Farm $15,260.72, an amount equal to the balance remaining on Connie Nelson’s car loan plus the amount paid for a rental vehicle. The court did not, however, order Singleton to make restitution to State Farm for the $4,290 that State Farm paid Nelson for the equity in her vehicle. The goal of restitution is make the victim “whole.” See Jester v. State, 367 Ark. 249, 239 S.W.3d 484 (2006). I am concerned that, without further statutory parameters on what constitutes an insurance company’s “actual economic loss,” an insurer receiving restitution may be made more than whole. An insurance company is, after all, in the business of collecting premiums from its insureds, and, after taking those premiums and other factors into consideration, there may be instances in which the insurer might, after receiving restitution from a defendant, recoup an amount in excess of its “actual economic loss.” In this case, there was no proof of State Farm’s “actual economic loss” in the sense that the court was not presented with actuarial evidence to demonstrate how much money State Farm actually “lost” when it paid out on Nelson’s claim. As noted above, the insurer was not awarded restitution for all the amounts that it paid. I thus cannot conclude that State [7Farm was allowed to receive more than its actual loss in this case. I would simply urge the General Assembly to consider this particular issue and clarify the treatment of restitution paid to insurance companies.