Court Opinion

ID: 9849514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:41:24.772282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.546267
License: Public Domain

Underwood, Judge,
concurring specially.
While it occurs to me that the legislature, in § 56-3410b (b), may have meant to refer to a person eligible for economic-loss insurance, as described in § 56-3403b (b), nevertheless the term "benefits” is used which, as intimated by Judge Carley, should be ascribed the same usage as in § 56-3408b (b), to wit, proceeds of the insurance. Thus while plaintiff might be eligible for the insurance; she is not "eligible” for the benefits thereof since there is no coverage; and under this view she would *632not be barred by § 56-3410b (b).
But even if plaintiff were assumed to be a "person eligible for economic loss benefits” within the meaning of § 56-3410b (b), the same result would follow since that section precludes recovery only for damages "for which compensation is available for economic loss under said section.” (Emphasis supplied.) Clearly that criterion is not met here since compensation is not available both as a matter of fact from the stipulation below, and as a matter of law under § 56-3408b (b). Consequently I agree that the court erred in removing the economic-loss damages from the case.
I am authorized to state that Acting Presiding Judge Banke joins in this special concurrence.