follows the general rule in Kansas

1993“This court follows the general rule that loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are *147 proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties. [Citations omitted.] Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614, 618 , 518 P.2d 512 (1974).

1993“This court follows the general rule that loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are *147 proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties. [Citations omitted.] Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Vickers v. Wichita State University, 213 Kan. 614, 618 , 518 P.2d 512 (1974).

1971This court follows the general rule that in determining the intention of the parties to a contract of insurance, the test is not what the insurer intends the printed words of the policy to mean, but rather what a reasonable person placed in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean. ( Casey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 205 Kan. 495, 499 , 470 P.2d 821 ; Kansas Farm Bureau Ins.

1971This court follows the general rule that in determining the intention of the parties to a contract of insurance, the test is not what the insurer intends the printed words of the policy to mean, but rather what a reasonable person placed in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean. ( Casey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 205 Kan. 495, 499 , 470 P.2d 821 ; Kansas Farm Bureau Ins.

1993The recent case of Kvassay v. Murray, 15 Kan.

1987Sutherland v. Sutherland, 187 Kan. 599, 610 , 358 P.2d 776 (1961).

1987Sutherland v. Sutherland, 187 Kan. 599, 610 , 358 P.2d 776 (1961).

1983In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581, 582 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), this court summarized the rules concerning loss of profits and stated: “ ‘This court follows the general rule that loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties. [Citations omitted.] Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’ ” (quoting Vickers v. Wichit

1983In Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 226 Kan. 581, 582 , 602 P.2d 1276 (1979), this court summarized the rules concerning loss of profits and stated: “ ‘This court follows the general rule that loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties. [Citations omitted.] Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’ ” (quoting Vickers v. Wichit

1980See State v. Public Service Commission, [ 359 Mo. 109 ], 220 S.W.2d 61 [1949]; New Haven Water Co. v. Connecticut Public Utilities Comm’n, [ 30 Conn. Sup. 149 ], 305 A.2d 863 [1972].” This follows the general rule of evidence, recognized in Kansas that: “The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness.

1980See State v. Public Service Commission, [ 359 Mo. 109 ], 220 S.W.2d 61 [1949]; New Haven Water Co. v. Connecticut Public Utilities Comm’n, [ 30 Conn. Sup. 149 ], 305 A.2d 863 [1972].” This follows the general rule of evidence, recognized in Kansas that: “The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness.

1980In Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co., 220 Kan. 52, 54 , 551 P.2d 779 (1976), the Kansas Supreme Court set out the following rule: “This court follows the general rule that in the absence of a contract, express or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party, and the employee states no cause of action for breach of contract by alleging that he has been discharged.

1980In Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co., 220 Kan. 52, 54 , 551 P.2d 779 (1976), the Kansas Supreme Court set out the following rule: “This court follows the general rule that in the absence of a contract, express or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party, and the employee states no cause of action for breach of contract by alleging that he has been discharged.

1980While it cannot arbitrarily or capriciously refuse to consider the testimony of any witness it is not obligated to accept and give effect to any evidence which, in its honest opinion, is unreliable, even if such evidence is uncontradicted.” Beard v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 215 Kan. 343 , Syl. ¶ 1, 524 P.2d 1159 (1974).

1980While it cannot arbitrarily or capriciously refuse to consider the testimony of any witness it is not obligated to accept and give effect to any evidence which, in its honest opinion, is unreliable, even if such evidence is uncontradicted.” Beard v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 215 Kan. 343 , Syl. ¶ 1, 524 P.2d 1159 (1974).

1974(Rockey v. Bacon, 205 Kan. 578 , 470 P. 2d 804 ; Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679 , 17 Pac. 309 , reh. 39 Kan. 580 , 18 Pac. 719 .) Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

1974(Rockey v. Bacon, 205 Kan. 578 , 470 P. 2d 804 ; Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679 , 17 Pac. 309 , reh. 39 Kan. 580 , 18 Pac. 719 .) Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

1974(Rockey v. Bacon, 205 Kan. 578 , 470 P. 2d 804 ; Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679 , 17 Pac. 309 , reh. 39 Kan. 580 , 18 Pac. 719 .) Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

1974(Rockey v. Bacon, 205 Kan. 578 , 470 P. 2d 804 ; Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679 , 17 Pac. 309 , reh. 39 Kan. 580 , 18 Pac. 719 .) Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

1974(Rockey v. Bacon, 205 Kan. 578 , 470 P. 2d 804 ; Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 38 Kan. 679 , 17 Pac. 309 , reh. 39 Kan. 580 , 18 Pac. 719 .) Recovery for loss of profits caused by a breach of contract depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

1971Co. v. Cool, 205 Kan. 567, 572 , 471 P.2d 352 , and cases cited therein.) In contrast to the prominence accorded the insuring agreement found under Coverage G at the top of page two, the exclusionary clause on which the insurer relies is placed inconspicuously in a long paragraph near the bottom of the same page.

1971Co. v. Cool, 205 Kan. 567, 572 , 471 P.2d 352 , and cases cited therein.) In contrast to the prominence accorded the insuring agreement found under Coverage G at the top of page two, the exclusionary clause on which the insurer relies is placed inconspicuously in a long paragraph near the bottom of the same page.