Court Opinion

ID: 9615679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:39:42.874891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:50.350974
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
NAKAMURA, J.,
WITH WHOM CIRCUIT JUDGE MOON JOINS
The Intermediate Court of Appeals examined Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 294-5(b) and found a clear legislative design to reduce the no-fault benefits of a traffic victim by sums received under the workers’ compensation law for a particular loss. It thus agreed with the Insurance Commissioner and the Circuit Court of the First Circuit that the insurance carrier was not obliged to pay the claimant wage-replacement benefits provided by the no-fault law since he collected more than $800 a month in temporary total disability benefits from his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier during his disability. But the majority of this court concludes the Commissioner’s decision “is contrary to the clear language and framework of the no-fault statute.” I do not join the *352majority; like the ICA and the circuit court, I find the Commissioner’s decision to be consistent with the statute’s clear language and history.
I.
Tracing the history of HRS § 294-5(b), the ICA noted an early legislative declaration that the “ ‘amount paid [in no-fault benefits] would be reduced by any benefit from other sources paid to cover the same loss.’ ’1 In re Maldonado and Transport Indemnity, 5 Haw. App. 185, _, 683 P.2d 394, 398 (1984) (emphasis in ICA opinion). It further observed there was a subsequent expression that “ ‘all benefits a victim may receive from .. . workmen’s compensation ... shall be deducted from no-fault benefits which are due.’ ”2 Id. And as § 294-5(b) proclaims that “no-fault benefits shall be paid sec*353ondarily and net of any benefits a person is entitled to receive because of the accidental harm from . . . workers’ compensation laws,” the ICA concluded no-fault benefits were not payable where the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits for wage loss exceeded the maximum payable for such loss under the no-fault law. A contention that “net” as employed above essentially meant “secondary” was deemed untenable “since such definition would [have] rendered] the term ‘net’ superfluous.” 5 Haw. App. at-, 683 P.2d at 399.
II.
This court, however, adopts the claimant’s thesis in the face of unambiguous language militating against its acceptance and the ICA’s reasoned analysis, purporting to find clear language and direction to do so elsewhere in the law. But HRS §§ 294-3(a) and 294-2(10)(C)(i) lend no support for the tortured reading of the language at issue. Section 294-3(a) merely establishes a general right to benefits described and delimited by other sections of the law, and § 294-2(10)(C)(i) prescribes a maximum of $800 in benefits payable for monthly earnings loss. Moreover, the legislative document quoted at length furnishes no reason for depriving a key phrase in § 294-5(b) of meaningful effect.
The committee report, Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 983-80, in 1980 Senate Journal, at 1502, in no way dealt with the foregoing subsection or the situation at hand. The report accompanied the Senate draft of a House bill subsequently enacted as Act 234, Session Laws of Hawaii 1980, which amended HRS §§ 294-2, 294-10, 294-39, and 805-13 and also added a new provision relating to administrative hearings on claim denials. The quoted portion covered the deletion of § 294-2(10)(C)(iii) from the law, which the legislature felt was necessary to dispel a misapprehension that a traffic victim suffering only a partial loss of earnings was not entitled to no-fault benefits covering the loss. The claimant, however, obviously had no earnings and did not come within the purview of the particular amendment. Instead, he received benefits to cover his wage loss under the workers’ compensation law in excess of the $800 maximum payable under the no-fault law for monthly earnings loss. And since no-fault benefits are “net of any benefits a *354person . . . receive[s] . . . from . . . workers’ compensation laws,” he was not entitled to anything more in benefits.
Yet this court reads HRS § 294-5(b) as though the key phrase may somehow be ignored, and what the ICA feared has come to pass. The strained construct has also resulted in an anomaly that could not have been within the legislature’s contemplation — a loss of $1,534 in gross earnings will now be replaced by $1,534 in tax-free benefits.
I would not disturb the ICA’s comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

 Cited as supporting this proposition were Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 4, in 1973 Senate Journal, at 635, and Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 13, in 1973 House Journal, at 1219. The conference committee reports in relevant part read as follows:
Benefits which an insurer is required to pay under the no-fault policy would be secondary - the amount paid would be reduced by any benefitfrom other sources paid to cover the same loss. Such other collateral sources are HMSA or Kaiser health plans, state and federal workmen’s compensation, and federal social security benefits. Additionally, no recovery under any no-fault policy will be reduced by the deduction by the insurer of the federal and state income taxes which would have been due had the victim earned the income replacement.
1973SenateJournaI, at 637; 1973 House Journal, at 1221 (emphasis added).

 Cited as supporting this proposition were Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 28, in 1974 Senate Journal, at 776, and Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 27, in 1974 House Journal, at 863. The conference committee reports in relevant part read as follows:
Your Committee considered the advisability of making the motor vehicle insurer or the health insurer the primary carrier or payer for medical-rehabilitative benefits under the no-fault policy. After repeated consideration and reconsideration of what may be rather balanced arguments on each side, your Committee recommends that the motor vehicle insurer be made the primary carrier. The result will be to give the health insurer the right of recovery for any medical expenditure in behalf of an automobile accident victim against the motor vehicle insurer. We have been led to believe that this will reduce the demands upon the victim to make more than a single claim, insurers’ paper work, and administrative costs. Another argument made favoring this change from the present Act was that this mode of operation would speed the delivery of services and payments to the victim. We have continued the provision of the Act, however, that all benefits a victim may receive from social security, workmen’s compensation, or public assistance shall be deductedfrom no-fault benefits which are due.
1974 Senate Journal, at 779-80; 1974 Ho use Journal, at 867 (emphasis added).