Source or prior law:

L. 1973, ch. 198, § 1.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Stacking Personal Injury Protection Benefits: Can You? Should You?" Jay Thomas, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 20 (1980).

"The End of Interspousal Tort Immunity in Kansas and Potential Conflicts of Interest for Plaintiff's Attorneys," Timothy A. Short, Vol. X, No. 5, J.K.T.L.A. 9 (1987).

"Perspectives on Personal Injury Law," Willard H. Pedrick, 26 W.L.J. 399, 410, 420 (1987).

"Non-Economic Damage Cap: An Analysis of Miller v. Johnson," David R. Morantz and James R. Howell, 36 J.K.A.J. No. 2, 5 (2012).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Joint water district; city of Lansing and Delaware township; nature of the joint board. 86-103.

Crime victims compensation board; definitions; criminally injurious conduct; use of motor vehicle. 94-41.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Act does not violate either state or federal constitution. Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 591, 593, 594, 615, 617, 618, 522 P.2d 1291.

2. Referred to in construing and applying K.S.A. 40-3109 and 40-3113; right of insurer as to reimbursement and indemnity determined. Farm & City Ins. Co. v. American Standard Ins. Co., 220 Kan. 325, 326, 552 P.2d 1363.

3. Referred to in determining insurer's rights to reimbursement of PIP benefits paid to insured; K.S.A. 40-3113 construed. Easom v. Farmers Insurance Co., 221 Kan. 415, 417, 560 P.2d 117; Davis v. Western Insurance Companies, 221 Kan. 441, 560 P.2d 133.

4. Cited; K.S.A. 40-3117 construed; summary judgment reversed. Smith v. Marshall, 2 Kan. App. 2d 213, 577 P.2d 362.

5. Survivors benefits; statutory language considered and applied. Hand v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2 Kan. App. 2d 253, 255, 577 P.2d 1202.

6. Act does not preclude action for actual expenses and pecuniary loss although threshold provisions not met; nonresident subject to provisions. Mayer v. Harris, 224 Kan. 231, 232, 233, 579 P.2d 715.

7. Dismissal of tort action upheld; failure to satisfy threshold provisions of K.S.A. 40-3117. Smith v. Marshall, 225 Kan. 70, 71, 587 P.2d 320.

8. Referred to in determining insurer's rights under K.S.A. 40-3113a. Nitchals v. Williams, 225 Kan. 285, 287, 590 P.2d 582.

9. Act does not authorize a direct action against an insurance company. White v. Goodville Mut. Cas. Co., 226 Kan. 191, 193, 195, 196, 596 P.2d 1229.

10. Referred to in determining insurer's rights to subrogation and reimbursement under K.S.A. 40-3113; such rights limited by K.S.A. 60-513. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 227 Kan. 533, 608 P.2d 923.

11. Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing deposition of out-of-state physician in action for overdue personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, attorney fees and interest. Wilson v. American Fidelity Ins. Co., 229 Kan. 416, 625 P.2d 1117.

12. Any insurance policy provision which attempts to dilute, condition or limit minimum coverage requirements of the K.A.I.R.A. is void and invalid; policies may allow or exclude coverage above statutory limits. DeWitt v. Young, 229 Kan. 474, 476, 477, 625 P.2d 478.

13. Computation of insured's average annual compensation; attorney fees denied. Coe v. Security National Ins. Co., 5 Kan. App. 2d 176, 614 P.2d 455.

14. Mini-bike operated on highway is vehicle for which insurance is required. Kresyman v. State Farm Ins., 5 Kan. App. 2d 666, 667, 623 P.2d 524.

15. Plaintiff was entitled to recover last earnings because of disability, even though there was little out-of-pocket expenses. Dewey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 525 F. Supp. 857, 859, 864, 866 (1981).

16. Cited; uninsured motorist benefits statute, K.S.A. 40-284, applies only to Kansas registered or garaged vehicles. Wilds v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 231 Kan. 124, 642 P.2d 567 (1982).

17. Plaintiff held to be regularly employed person during period of vacation from teaching duties and is entitled to PIP disability benefits for that period. Armacost v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 Kan. 276, 277, 279, 644 P.2d 403 (1982).

18. Uninsured motorist may recover under another's policy if uninsured motorist is an "insured" under that policy. Merritt v. Farmers Ins. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 705, 709, 647 P.2d 1355 (1982).

19. Trial court erred in ordering payment of PIP benefits; question as to whether at the time of accident insured and purported employer had an employee and employer relationship. Egy v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 144, 145, 651 P.2d 954 (1982).

20. Insurer's lien under K.S.A. 40-3113a has priority over hospital's lien under K.S.A. 65-406. Richards v. Etzen, 231 Kan. 704, 706, 647 P.2d 1331 (1982).

21. Award of attorney fee is not contingent upon contract between the insurer and the attorney. Johnston & Johnston, P.A. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 401, 659 P.2d 249 (1983).

22. "Other insurance" excess coverage policy provisions not violative of K.A.I.R.A.; proration of liability between two policies affording dual primary coverage. Western Cas. & Surety Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 232 Kan. 606, 608, 657 P.2d 576 (1983).

23. Farm-Master Policy not a liability insurance policy under provisions of act; no violation of act. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Horinek, 233 Kan. 175, 181, 660 P.2d 1374 (1983).

24. Insurer has no right of subrogation where plaintiff recovered from owner of steer which collided with plaintiff's car. Yunghans v. Carson, 9 Kan. App. 2d 45, 47, 670 P.2d 928 (1983).

25. PIP benefits payable to nonoccupant of vehicle only when "struck by" vehicle. Pestock v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 188, 189, 674 P.2d 1062 (1984).

26. Purpose of act summarized; liability policies required to contain PIP coverage. Burris v. Northern Assurance Co. of America, 236 Kan. 326, 331, 691 P.2d 10 (1984).

27. Insurer has not recovered PIP benefits when advance payments under K.S.A. 40-275 subsequently deducted; no attorney fees allowed. Howard v. Edwards, 9 Kan. App. 2d 763, 765, 767, 689 P.2d 911 (1984).

28. Act is compulsory insurance act, not financial responsibility act; K.S.A. 40-3104(g)(4) not violative of 14 th Amendment. Barnes v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 238 Kan. 820, 827, 828, 714 P.2d 975 (1986).

29. Cited in holding uninsured motorist provision establishing priority of payment without restrictions on mandated coverage permissible. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 10 Kan. App. 2d 93, 97, 692 P.2d 393 (1984).

30. Cited; automobile as used in K.S.A. 40-284 held to include motorcycles. Klamm v. Carter, 11 Kan. App. 2d 574, 578, 580, 730 P.2d 1099 (1986).

31. Waiver of affirmative defense that act required coverage for permissive users despite policy exclusion examined. Canal Insurance Co. v. Earnshaw, 629 F. Supp. 114, 115 (1985).

32. "Employee" exclusions provisions invalid in Kansas, held void only as to minimum coverage required by statute. Canal Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 683 F. Supp. 1296 (W.D. Mo. 1988).

33. Unenforceability of occupant hazard exclusion in trucking company's liability policy, equitable contribution between insurers examined. Great West Cas. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 706 F. Supp. 761, 762 (D. Kan. 1989); affirmed in part and remanded in part, 901 F.2d 1525 (1990).

34. Cited; statutes (K.S.A. 60-3407, 60-3409, 60-3411) limiting recovery in medical malpractice actions as unconstitutional examined. Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell, 243 Kan. 333, 344, 757 P.2d 251 (1988).

35. Absence of distinction between phrases "accidental means" and "accidental results" determined. Whitaker v. State Farm Mut. Auto Mins. Co., 13 Kan. App. 2d 279, 281, 284, 768 P.2d 320 (1989).

36. Authority of department of revenue to delete suspension order under K.S.A. 40-3104 examined. State v. Damman, 244 Kan. 487, 489, 769 P.2d 662 (1989).

37. Devices (dune buggy) for off-road use, while used as such, not motor vehicle under automobile insurance policy. Shumaker v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Kan. App. 2d 155, 156, 785 P.2d 180 (1990).

38. Choice of law principles regarding medical payments examined where Missouri owner of motor vehicle had accident in Kansas. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Baker, 14 Kan. App. 2d 641, 797 P.2d 168 (1990).

39. Authority of regulation to prohibit subrogation of medical benefits coverage other than PIP (K.S.A. 40-3113a) examined. Durrett v. Bryan, 14 Kan. App. 2d 723, 726, 799 P.2d 110 (1990).

40. Ambiguity in policy relative to changes in coverage "...to be in line with the laws of your state..." examined. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Old Hickory Cas. Ins. Co., 248 Kan. 657, 658, 810 P.2d 283 (1991).

41. On question certified (K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq.), K.S.A. 40-3403(h) abrogating certain common-law vicarious liability held constitutional. Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 842, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991).

42. Reformation of insurance policy to exclude coverage for accident and injury to third party allowed; insurance binder fraudulently obtained after accident. Slaby v. Cox, 250 Kan. 429, 435, 827 P.2d 18 (1992).

43. Noted where statutory credit for workers compensation benefits (K.S.A. 40-3110) held applicable to maximum PIP benefits payable under policy terms. House v. American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 251 Kan. 419, 421, 837 P.2d 391 (1992).

44. Cited in holding vicarious liability not imputed to vehicle owner based solely on permissive use by third party. West v. Collins, 251 Kan. 657, 660, 840 P.2d 435 (1992).

45. Limitations on participation by PIP carrier's counsel following intervention (K.S.A. 40-3113a) and award of attorney fees to insured's counsel noted. Foveaux v. Smith, 17 Kan. App. 2d 685, 843 P.2d 283 (1992).

46. Medical provider was a third-party beneficiary under insurance policy entitled to bring suit against insurer for PIP benefits. U.S. v. United Services Auto Assn., 968 F.2d 1000, 1001 (1992).

47. Kansas automobile injury reparations act (KAIRA) interpreted and applied. Hephner v. Traders Ins. Co., 18 Kan. App. 2d 344, 852 P.2d 520 (1993).

48. Cited in holding that absent private contract, self-insurer has no duty to defend employee by operation of law. Overbaugh v. Strange, 18 Kan. App. 2d 365, 366, 853 P.2d 80 (1993).

49. Nonresident self-insurer's duty to defend and pay employee vehicle defense costs, including attorney fees examined. Overbaugh v. Strange, 254 Kan. 605, 613, 867 P.2d 1016 (1994).

50. Whether K.S.A. 40-3107 permits direct action against insurer of negligent insured in automobile collision cases examined. King v. American Family Ins. Co., 19 Kan. App. 2d 620, 622, 874 P.2d 691 (1994).

51. Defendant was under indefinite suspension of driving privileges which could end only upon submission of proof of insurance and payment of fee; K.S.A. 8-262(a)(2) inapplicable. State v. Lawson, 261 Kan. 964, 967, 933 P.2d 684 (1997).

52. License suspension under K.S.A. 40-3118 void; notice did not inform licensee of right to request hearing thereon. State v. Adkins, 24 Kan. App. 2d 337, 338, 945 P.2d 880 (1997).

53. Violation of KAIRA (no auto insurance) does not provide a cause of action to injured person. Loar v. Roletto, 26 Kan. App. 2d 246, 249, 982 P.2d 993 (1999).

54. Step-down provision in auto policy is permissible; failure to specify limit of step-down exclusion does not violate KAIRA as minimum limits are established by KAIRA. Brooks v. Bennett, 29 Kan. App. 2d 308, 26 P.3d 73 (2001).

55. Husband's insurance policy does not provide liability coverage for injuries incurred by wife while husband was driving wife's separately owned and insured automobile. Geico General Ins. Co. v. Hanzlik, 32 Kan. App. 2d 951, 92 P.3d 1121 (2004).

56. Trial court abused its discretion by entering default judgment; award of attorney fees is reversed. Lara v. Vasquez, 33 Kan. App. 2d 128, 98 P.3d 660 (2004).

57. Uniform simultaneous death act does not apply to determination of survivors under K.S.A. 40-3103. Polson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 288 Kan. 165, 200 P.3d 1266 (2009).