Court Opinion

ID: 9797003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:10:29.584565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:54.756786
License: Public Domain

Judge GRAHAM
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I reach that result without reviewing the legislative history of § 10-4-710(2)(a). In attempting to discern the original meaning of the text of the statute at issue in this case, I would go no further than its language.
The text requires that insurers offer specified enhanced "benefits" and lists two alternative groups of benefits under subsections (I) and (II). The first benefit is a coverage which provides compensation for expenses of the type set forth in § 10-4-706(1)(b) without *303any dollar or time limitation. The second benefit is coverage of those same expenses and payment of benefits for lost income. Although the statutory language is not a model of grammatical clarity, in my view the addition of the clause, "at the option of the insured," is meant to modify the clause, "for inclusion in a complying policy."
I therefore read the statute to mean that the insured shall have the option of including the benefits under subsection (I) or (II) in the policy.