” Morrow v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 772 So.2d at 1164 (quoting Cagle v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 681 So.2d 611, 613 (Ala.Civ. App.1996), in turn quoting Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. Elliott, 598 So.2d 931, 933 (Ala.Civ.App.1992)). This rule is inconsistent with the plain meaning of Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-57(a), and with logic. Clearly, the loss of an arm includes the loss of a hand. See, e.g., Flicker v. Mac Sign Co., 252 N.Y. 492, 170 N.E. 118 (1930). In Flicker, Chief Judge Cardozo explained that “[w]ith the reservation for greater prudence of exceptional conditions, the scheduled compensation for loss of the larger member must be accepted as compensation for the loss of its component parts.” 252 N.Y. at 494, 170 N.E. at 118. Accord Nabb v. Haveg Indus., Inc., 265 A.2d 320 (Del.Super.Ct.1969) (<HOLDING>); Armstrong Cork Co. v. Sheppard, 222 Miss.
holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium recognizing loss of consortium claims holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa