II As to whether 21 Del. C. § 2118(a)(2)a.3. requires an insurer to pay routine, recurring medical expenses for a period of time more than two years after an accident where the costs of such treatment could not be ascertained, the Court below found that it did. 444 A.2d 286. The Court ruled that the statement by Dr. Monteleone complied with the decision in Carucci v. Van Dyke, Del.Super., 394 A.2d 246 (1978) and that it is only the necessity of medical expenses which must be ascertained and not their costs. We affirm.
We agree. The personal representatives' reliance upon Carucci v. Van Dyke, Del.Super., 394 A.2d 246 (1978), is misplaced. In Carucci it was held that to be eligible under § 2118(a)(2)a.3 for recovery of lost earnings incurred beyond two years, "all of the limiting factors stated in subparagraph 3" must be fulfilled, namely, "(1) ascertainment of necessity before expiration of the 2-year period, (2) impracticality or impossibility of performing the procedures or treatment within the 2-year period and (3) written verification within the 2-year period that the procedures or treatment will be necessary."
[c]ost of dental or surgical procedures, medical expenses including related treatment and the net amount of lost earnings the necessity of which have been medically ascertained within 2 years from the date of the accident but which are impractical or impossible to perform during that period and as to which verification that such procedures or treatments will be necessary has been made in writing by a qualified medical practitioner within 2 years from the date of the accident. Carucci v. Van Dyke, 394 A.2d 24 6, 248 (Del. Super. 1978). In Kemske v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. the Superior Court analyzed this version of the statute to determine what exactly had to be necessary but impractical or impossible to perform within the two-year period.
The payment of this cost shall be either at the time they are ascertained or at the time they are actually incurred, at the insurer's option. This statutory provision has already been considered by the Superior Court in Carucci v. Van Dyke, Del.Super., 394 A.2d 246 (1978). In that case the Court interpreted the language of Sec. 2118(a)(2) a.3. to set forth three factors which must be present in order to establish the liability of the insurer.