Printable Format40-3107. Motor vehicle liability insurance policies; required contents; exclusions of coverage; legislative interim study. Every policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2017, by an insurer to an owner residing in this state shall:
(a) Designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference of all vehicles with respect to which coverage is to be granted;
(b) insure the person named and any other person, as insured, using any such vehicle with the expressed or implied consent of such named insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any such vehicle within the United States of America or the Dominion of Canada, subject to the limits stated in such policy;
(c) state the name and address of the named insured, the coverage afforded by the policy, the premium charged and the policy period;
(d) contain an agreement or be endorsed that insurance is provided in accordance with the coverage required by this act;
(e) contain stated limits of liability, exclusive of interest and costs, with respect to each vehicle for which coverage is granted, not less than $25,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, one person in any one accident and, subject to the limit for one person, to a limit of not less than $50,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one accident, and to a limit of not less than $25,000 because of harm to or destruction of property of others in any one accident;
(f) include personal injury protection benefits to the named insured, relatives residing in the same household, persons operating the insured motor vehicle, passengers in such motor vehicle and other persons struck by such motor vehicle and suffering bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle, not exceeding the limits prescribed for each of such benefits, for loss sustained by any such person as a result of injury. The owner of a motorcycle, as defined by K.S.A. 8-1438, and amendments thereto or motor-driven cycle, defined by K.S.A. 8-1439, and amendments thereto, who is the named insured, shall have the right to reject in writing insurance coverage including such benefits for injury to a person which occurs while the named insured is operating or is a passenger on such motorcycle or motor-driven cycle; and unless the named insured requests such coverage in writing, such coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy when the named insured has rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued by the same insurer. The fact that the insured has rejected such coverage shall not cause such motorcycle or motor-driven cycle to be an uninsured motor vehicle;
(g) notwithstanding any omitted or inconsistent language, any contract of insurance which an insurer represents as or which purports to be a motor vehicle liability insurance policy meeting the requirements of this act shall be construed to obligate the insurer to meet all the mandatory requirements and obligations of this act;
(h) notwithstanding any other provision contained in this section, any insurer may exclude coverage required by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section while any insured vehicles are:
(1) Rented to others or used to carry persons for a charge, however, such exclusion shall not apply to the use of a private passenger car on a share the expense basis; or
(2) being repaired, serviced or used by any person employed or engaged in any way in the automobile business. This does not apply to the named insured, spouse or relative residents; or the agents, employers, employees or partners of the named insured, spouse or resident relative; and
(i) in addition to the provisions of subsection (h) and notwithstanding any other provision contained in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section, any insurer may exclude coverage:
(1) For any damages for which the United States government might be liable for the insured's use of the vehicle;
(2) for any damages to property owned by, rented to, or in charge of or transported by an insured, however, this exclusion shall not apply to coverage for a rented residence or rented private garage;
(3) for any obligation of an insured, or the insured's insurer under any type of workers' compensation or disability or similar law;
(4) for liability assumed by an insured under any contract or agreement;
(5) if two or more vehicle liability policies apply to the same accident, the total limits of liability under all such policies shall not exceed that of the policy with the highest limit of liability;
(6) for any damages arising from an intentional act;
(7) for any damages to any person who would be covered for such damages under a nuclear energy liability policy;
(8) for any obligation of the insured to indemnify another for damages resulting from bodily injury to the insured's employee by accident arising out of and in the course of such employee's employment;
(9) for bodily injury to any fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employee's employment;
(10) for bodily injury or property damage resulting from the handling of property:
(A) Before it is moved from the place where it is accepted by the insured for movement into or onto the covered auto; or
(B) after it is moved from the covered auto to the place where it is finally delivered by the insured;
(11) for bodily injury or property damage resulting from the movement of property by a mechanical device, other than a hand truck, not attached to the covered auto; and
(12) for bodily injury or property damage caused by the dumping, discharge or escape of irritants, pollutants or contaminants; however, this exclusion does not apply if the discharge is sudden and accidental.
(j) Commencing with the 2026 legislative interim period, and at least every 10 years thereafter, subject to authorization by the legislative coordinating council, a legislative interim study committee shall study the issue of whether the minimum limits of liability in subsection (e) should be adjusted.
History: L. 1974, ch. 193, § 7; L. 1981, ch. 191, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 167, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 175, § 1; L. 2016, ch. 72, § 1; January 1, 2017.
Source or prior law:
L. 1973, ch. 198, § 7.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"No-Fault Automobile Insurance," Barry W. McCormick and Lynn Franklin Taylor II, 23 K.L.R. 141, 148 (1974).
Limits mentioned in note concerning the Kansas uninsured motorist statute, 16 W.L.J. 764, 765 (1977).
"Comparative Fault and Strick Products Liability in Kansas: Reflections on the Distinction Between Initial Liability and Ultimate Loss Allocation," William Edward Westerbeke and Hal D. Meltzer, 28 K.L.R. 25, 91 (1979).
"Insurer's Bad Faith: A New Tort for Kansas?" Janet Amerine and Jan E. Montgomery, 19 W.L.J. 467, 485 (1980).
"Some Current Problems in No-Fault," Jerry R. Palmer, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 21, 24, 25 (1978).
"Stacking Personal Injury Protection Benefits: Can You? Should You?" Jay Thomas, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 20 (1980).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Insurance Law," 29 K.L.R. 531, 532 (1981).
"Torts—Interspousal Immunity in Kansas: A Vestige of a Bygone Era—Guffy v. Guffy," Catherine Hauber, 30 K.L.R. 611, 612 (1982).
"Recent Developments in Kansas Insurance Law: A Survey, Some Analysis, and Some Suggestions," Robert H. Jerry II, 32 K.L.R. 287, 330, 331, 333, 344, 345, 346, 347 (1984).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 4 (1984).
"Perspectives on Personal Injury Law," Willard H. Pedrick, 26 W.L.J. 399, 410, 420 (1987).
"Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance: A Sleeping Giant," Gerald W. Scott, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 28, 30, 33 (1994).
"UM/UIM Coverage Under School Bus Policy of Children Not on Bus," Tim Short, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 6, 8 (2001).
"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:
Evidence of financial security. 86-136.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Contents of section noted in upholding constitutionality of no-fault insurance act. Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 594, 596, 624, 522 P.2d 1291.
2. Applied in construing 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, 331, 333, 335, 552 P.2d 1363.
3. 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.
4. Applied; nonresident owner of motor vehicle operated on Kansas highways subject to act. Mayer v. Harris, 224 Kan. 231, 232, 579 P.2d 715.
5. Subsection (b) must be read into insurance policy (dissenting opinion). Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schiller, 226 Kan. 155, 166, 597 P.2d 238.
6. Decisions holding direct action against insurance company authorized under K.S.A. 66-1,128 distinguished from such an action under this section, which is prohibited. White v. Goodville Mut. Cas. Co., 226 Kan. 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 596 P.2d 1229.
7. Unemancipated minor child may recover damages against parent for personal injuries caused by parent's negligent operation of motor vehicle. Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, 227 Kan. 758, 768, 611 P.2d 135.
8. 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, 480, 625 P.2d 478.
9. Ambiguous insurance policy to be construed in favor of the insured. Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 5 Kan. App. 2d 499, 506, 619 P.2d 160.
10. Statute requires motor vehicle liability insurance to include PIP benefits. Bradley v. AID Insurance Co., 6 Kan. App. 2d 367, 369, 629 P.2d 720 (1981).
11. Cited in holding one spouse may not sue the other for torts occurring during marriage. Guffy v. Guffy, 230 Kan. 89, 93, 94, 631 P.2d 646 (1981).
12. Throwing of an M-80 out of a parked car did not provide a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 7 Kan. App. 2d 60, 62, 637 P.2d 491 (1982).
13. 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, 125, 126, 127, 642 P.2d 567 (1982).
14. 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, 182, 660 P.2d 1374 (1983).
15. History and purpose of act considered; subrogation rights of insurer; benefits in excess of minimum requirements. Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 475, 478, 402 P.2d 661 (1983).
16. 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).
17. Mentioned in holding insured, under facts, intended to replace car regardless of failure to legally transfer replaced vehicle. Continental Ins. Co. v. Entrikin, 9 Kan. App. 2d 384, 386, 395, 680 P.2d 913 (1984).
18. No requirement mandating liability coverage for relatives of named insured while operating another's vehicle with permission; exclusion under (h)(2) considered; coverage under (b) considered. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 601 F. Supp. 345, 349 (1984).
19. Right to make advance payments under K.S.A. 40-275 neither affected hereunder nor lost where one insurer covers both parties. Howard v. Edwards, 9 Kan. App. 2d 763, 765, 767, 689 P.2d 911 (1984).
20. 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).
21. No reimbursement to PIP insurer where actual damages exceed liability coverage plus PIP benefits received. Kansas Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Miller, 236 Kan. 811, 812, 817, 696 P.2d 961 (1985).
22. Cited; class of insureds in uninsured coverage (K.S.A. 40-284) cannot be more restrictive than class herein. Girrens v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 238 Kan. 670, 674, 715 P.2d 389 (1986).
23. Affirmative defense that act required coverage for permissive users despite policy exclusion examined. Canal Insurance Co. v. Earnshaw, 629 F. Supp. 114, 115 (1985).
24. Cited; automobile as used in K.S.A. 40-284 held to include motorcycles. Klamm v. Carter, 11 Kan. App. 2d 574, 579, 580, 730 P.2d 1099 (1986).
25. Section (i)(1) covering household exclusion clauses substantive in nature; absent contrary intent, repeal applies prospectively. Hilyard v. Estate of Clearwater, 240 Kan. 362, 366, 729 P.2d 1195 (1986).
26. Insurance policy provisions excluding damages for insured's employees invalid prior to 1985 amendments (subsections (i)(8) and (i)(9)). Canal Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 654 F. Supp. 285, 288 (1986).
27. Public policy of act does not cover bailee or collision damages to automobile dealer's vehicle through bailee's negligence. Western Motor Co. v. Koehn, 12 Kan. App. 2d 215, 221, 738 P.2d 466 (1987).
28. Cited; assertion of subrogation claim by automobile owner's insurer against bailee examined. Western Motor Co. v. Koehn, 242 Kan. 402, 407, 748 P.2d 851 (1988).
29. Absence of distinction between phrases "accidental means" and "accidental results" determined. Whitaker v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 13 Kan. App. 2d 279, 281, 284, 768 P.2d 320 (1989).
30. Ambiguity in policy regarding per person and per occurrence liability limits construed in policyholder's favor. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Winters, 14 Kan. App. 2d 623, 630, 797 P.2d 885 (1990).
31. 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, 643, 797 P.2d 168 (1990).
32. Injured passenger has liability and uninsured motorist coverage available from negligent insured driver in accident with negligent uninsured driver, policy provisions notwithstanding. Steward v. Capps, 14 Kan. App. 2d 356, 359, 789 P.2d 563 (1990); Affirmed, 247 Kan. 549, 802 P.2d 1226 (1990).
33. Ambiguity in policy as to terms "per occurrence" and "per person" examined; language herein could clarify. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Winters, 248 Kan. 295, 300, 806 P.2d 993 (1991).
34. 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, 431, 827 P.2d 18 (1992).
35. Noted in holding that uninsured motorist coverage and PIP benefits not applicable to occupants shot after minor collision. Hamidian v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 251 Kan. 254, 256, 833 P.2d 1007 (1992).
36. 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).
37. Act mandates liability coverage, not liability; vicarious liability not imputed to vehicle owner based solely on permissive use by third party. West v. Collins, 251 Kan. 657, 668, 840 P.2d 435 (1992).
38. Policy exclusion for drivers with no reasonable belief of entitlement to use automobile upheld. Wallon v. Acosta, 799 F. Supp. 83, 86 (1992).
39. Absent private contract, self-insurer has no duty to defend employee by operation of law. Overbaugh v. Strange, 18 Kan. App. 2d 365, 367, 853 P.2d 80 (1993).
40. Nonresident self-insurer's duty to defend and pay employee vehicle defense costs, including attorney fees examined. Overbaugh v. Strange, 254 Kan. 605, 608, 616, 867 P.2d 1016 (1994).
41. Whether subsection (b) permits direct action against insurer of negligent insured in automobile collision cases examined. King v. American Family Ins. Co., 19 Kan. App. 2d 620, 621, 874 P.2d 691 (1994).
42. Whether insurance company exhibited bad faith by reaching settlement agreements with two claimants before settlement with third claimant examined. Levier v. Koppenheffer, 19 Kan. App. 2d 971, 976, 978, 879 P.2d 40 (1994).
43. Whether injury caused by gun was natural and reasonable incident arising out of use of vehicle for insurance coverage purposes examined. Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Kan. App. 2d 918, 922, 894 P.2d 226 (1995).
44. Injury caused by accidental discharge while gun being removed from car covered under insured's automobile liability policy. Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 258 Kan. 547, 550, 907 P.2d 891 (1995).
45. Trial court may apportion an injured party's attorney fees from PIP benefits paid to tortfeasor's insurer. Jackson v. Browning, 21 Kan. App. 2d 845, 850, 908 P.2d 641 (1995).
46. Insurance code (K.S.A. 40-101 et seq.) allows a named insured to give legal agent the right to reject uninsured motorist and PIP coverage. Ridgway v. Shelter Ins. Co., 22 Kan. App. 2d 218, 221, 225, 913 P.2d 1231 (1996).
47. Trial court erred by dividing liability between insurance and rental car company based on equal share rule. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Winney, 22 Kan. App. 2d 833, 834, 923 P.2d 517 (1996).
48. Insurance exclusion for intentional act damages encompasses injury which is probable consequence of insured's intentional act. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Falley, 23 Kan. App. 2d 21, 22, 26, 926 P.2d 664 (1996).
49. Failure to include anti-stacking provision in policy does not constitute a waiver of statutory prohibition against stacking. Eidemiller v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 261 Kan. 711, 718, 723, 933 P.2d 748 (1997).
50. Insurer allegation that certain provisions of insurance policy violated KAIRA (K.S.A. 40-3101 et seq.) properly denied; policy held unambiguous. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hill, 24 Kan. App. 2d 943, 946, 948, 955 P.2d 1333 (1998).
51. Nonresident self-insurer obligated to pay damages caused by permissive use of self-insurer's car. Burt v. Schrubba, 25 Kan. App. 2d 614, 618, 967 P.2d 344 (1998).
52. Nonresident driving Kansas resident's vehicle while injured is entitled to PIP benefits from out-of-state insurer of nonresident's vehicle. Morris v. American Standard Ins. Co., 26 Kan. App. 2d 933, 936, 996 P.2d 349 (2000).
53. Insurance policy's omission of any reference to PIP benefits construed as providing statutory minimum benefits. Bishop v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 47 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1307 (1999).
54. Insurance policy unambiguously precluded stacking by setting maximum liability limit regardless of number of vehicles insured. Guidant Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1091 (1999).
55. Surviving daughter not entitled to PIP benefits upon death of father killed while driving mother's vehicle as he owned a motor vehicle but had no insurance on his vehicle. Hernandez v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 29 Kan. App. 2d 47, 22 P.3d 1075 (2001).
56. Public policy criminality defense did not preclude recovery under automobile insurance liability policy. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1112 (2001).
57. Insurer not required to provide derivative coverage in excess of per person policy limitation. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Jokan, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1213, 57 P.3d 24 (2002).
58. Nonowned auto coverage of garage does not provide coverage for employee when vehicle is not being used for benefit of employer. Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 31 Kan. App. 2d 884, 75 P.3d 263 (2003).
59. In commercial general liability policy, exclusion for damages from use of automobile does not exclude coverage from negligent hiring and supervision of employee; follows Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 265 Kan. 317. Crist v. Hunan Palace, Inc., 277 Kan. 706, 89 P.3d 573 (2004).
60. Under facts of case injury substantially certain to occur, recovery barred under intentional act exclusion of policy. Thomas v. Benchmark Ins. Co., 36 Kan. App. 2d 409, 422, 140 P.3d 438 (2006).
61. Mentioned in automobile insurance case involving policy exclusion for damages arising from intentional or criminal acts. Moses v. Halstead, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1128 (2007).
62. Mentioned; court sets forth principles for determining whether an intentional act has caused intentional injury to bar insurance coverage. Thomas v. Benchmark Ins. Co., 285 Kan. 918, 922, 179 P.3d 421 (2008).
63. Cited; where underinsured motorist coverage exceeds limits of bodily injury coverage carried by owner of other car, UIM coverage exists. Stemple v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1308 (2008).
64. 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).