I view this clause as one that, in a sense, expands coverage. I don't see this as restricting coverage. There are times when economic loss is not covered; for example, when a person loses their job as a result of something else that happens and their business is affected or whatever. This clarifies that in cases where courts might not otherwise accept them as being compensable, they are in fact compensable. I think this is a positive thing.
On November 23rd, 2009. See this statement in context.