Court Opinion

ID: 9848450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:19:59.510398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:18.462719
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee seeks a rehearing by strenuously urging that the record is full of evidence that the appellant had no lost wages, and therefore, that we erred in saying “that the assertion that appellant had no lost wages is ‘. . . one supported by no other indication’ than the evidence showing that appellant made no claim for lost wages against his no-fault carrier.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Aside from the fact that whether there was any evidence of lost wages is not the pertinent issue in this appeal, appellee’s assertion quoted above is a misstatement and misunderstanding of the clear ruling. We said, referring to appellant’s failure to make a claim on his own insurance for lost wages, that “to conclude or assume he made no claim only because he had no lost wages is only a conclusion or assumption, and one supported by no other indication.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Motion for rehearing denied.

Pope, J., concurs. Deen, P. J., concurs in judgment only.

*197Decided January 5, 1988
Rehearing denied March 4, 1988.
0. Wendell Horne III, for appellant.
Jerry A. Lumley, for appellee.