referred rule in Kansas

2012Nevertheless, the court observed there was “no serious contention on appeal by either party” in that case that the use of the land was not exclusive. 6 Kan.

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2009(G.S.1949, 60-306, Sixth; Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 718 , 96 P.2d 624 ; and Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177 , 30 P.2d 136 .) There is no indication in any of the commentaries on K.S.A.1967 Supp. 60-511(5) that any change was intended regarding this section of the statute of limitations in the new code of civil procedure." (Emphasis added.) Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 544 , 438 P.2d 957 (1968).

2005App. 2d 672 , Syl. ¶ 1, 634 P.2d 133 (1981), this court set forth the standard of care that applies to an insurance agent who undertakes to procure insurance for another: “An insurance agent or broker who undertakes to procure insurance for another owes to the client the duty to exercise the skill, care and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent and competent insurance agent or broker acting under the same circumstances.” The court referred to this standard of care as the “exercise care duty.” 6 Kan.

2005App. 2d 672 , Syl. ¶ 1, 634 P.2d 133 (1981), this court set forth the standard of care that applies to an insurance agent who undertakes to procure insurance for another: “An insurance agent or broker who undertakes to procure insurance for another owes to the client the duty to exercise the skill, care and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent and competent insurance agent or broker acting under the same circumstances.” The court referred to this standard of care as the “exercise care duty.” 6 Kan.

1995In so stating, this court referred to the rule that when determining legislative intent, courts are not limited to consid *589 eration of the language used in a statute but may look to the historical background of the enactment. 14 Kan.

1988In adopting this rule, the court referred to the analysis used in two cases cited in Moody’s motion for summary judgment: Craig v. Mar- *692 grave, 84 Nev. 638 , 446 P.2d 653 (1968); Fletcher Realty, Inc. v. Hayslope Properties, 712 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. App. 1986).

1988In adopting this rule, the court referred to the analysis used in two cases cited in Moody’s motion for summary judgment: Craig v. Mar- *692 grave, 84 Nev. 638 , 446 P.2d 653 (1968); Fletcher Realty, Inc. v. Hayslope Properties, 712 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. App. 1986).

1988In adopting this rule, the court referred to the analysis used in two cases cited in Moody’s motion for summary judgment: Craig v. Mar- *692 grave, 84 Nev. 638 , 446 P.2d 653 (1968); Fletcher Realty, Inc. v. Hayslope Properties, 712 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. App. 1986).