case within the specified exception in Kansas

2019Upland Mutual Insurance, Inc. v. Noel , 214 Kan. 145 , 150, 519 P.2d 737 (1974)." 265 Kan. at 327, 961 P.2d 1213 .

1992The Noel court pointed out that where an insurer attempts to avoid liability under an insurance policy on the ground that the loss for which recovery is sought is covered by some exclusionary clause, the burden is on the insurer to prove the facts which bring the case within the specified exception. 214 Kan. at 150 .

2004The majority stated the following standards for reviewing insurance policies: *711 "Generally, exceptions, limitations, and exclusions to insurance policies require narrow construction on the theory that the insurer, having affirmatively expressed coverage through broad promises, assumes the duty to define any limitations on that coverage in clear and explicit terms. [Citation omitted.] If an insurer intends to restrict or limit coverage, it must use clear and unambiguous language in doing so, otherwise the insurance policy will be liberally construed in favor of the insured. [Citation omitted

2004The majority stated the following standards for reviewing insurance policies: “Generally, exceptions, limitations, and exclusions to insurance policies require narrow construction on the theory that the insurer, having affirmatively expressed coverage through broad promises, assumes the duty to define any limitations on that coverage in clear and explicit terms. [Citation omitted.] If an insurer intends to restrict or limit coverage, it must use clear and unambiguous language in doing so, otherwise the insurance policy will be liberally construed in favor of the insured. [Citation omitted.] Th

1974Co., 201 Kan. 499 , 441 P. 2d 808 , which reads: “Where an insurer seeks to avoid liability under its policy on the ground that the circumstances fall within an exception set out in the policy, the burden is on the insurer to establish the facts which bring the case within the specified exception.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) Appellant further quotes at length from the case of Buchanan v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins.

1974Co., 201 Kan. 499 , 441 P. 2d 808 , which reads: “Where an insurer seeks to avoid liability under its policy on the ground that the circumstances fall within an exception set out in the policy, the burden is on the insurer to establish the facts which bring the case within the specified exception.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) Appellant further quotes at length from the case of Buchanan v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins.

1970Co., 201 Kan. 499 , 441 P.2d 808 ; Smith v. Allied Mutual Casualty Co., 184 Kan. 814 , 339 P.2d 19 ; and Braly v. Commercial Casualty Ins.

1970Co., 201 Kan. 499 , 441 P.2d 808 ; Smith v. Allied Mutual Casualty Co., 184 Kan. 814 , 339 P.2d 19 ; and Braly v. Commercial Casualty Ins.

1974Co., 201 Kan. 666 , 443 P. 2d 681 , which involves coverage under a similar policy of insurance.

1974Co., 201 Kan. 666 , 443 P. 2d 681 , which involves coverage under a similar policy of insurance.

1968Co. v. Walley, 251 Miss. 781 , 171 So. 2d 358 .) Our court has held, however, that when an insurer seeks to avoid liability on its policy on the ground the circumstances fall within some exception contained in its policy, the burden is on the insurer to prove the facts which bring the case within the specified exception.

1959Co., 181 Kan. 120 , 309 P. 2d 394 , where we further stated: “Then we find the well-settled rule that where a policy of insurance is so drawn as to require an interpretation, a construction most favorable to the insured will be adopted for the reason that the company prepares the contract of insurance, thereby selecting its own language.” (pp. 125, 126.) The parties devote most of their briefs to a discussion as to whether the award of the commissioner was a final judgment and whether, if it were such, it was res judicata or could be collaterally attacked.

1959Co., 181 Kan. 120 , 309 P. 2d 394 , where we further stated: “Then we find the well-settled rule that where a policy of insurance is so drawn as to require an interpretation, a construction most favorable to the insured will be adopted for the reason that the company prepares the contract of insurance, thereby selecting its own language.” (pp. 125, 126.) The parties devote most of their briefs to a discussion as to whether the award of the commissioner was a final judgment and whether, if it were such, it was res judicata or could be collaterally attacked.

1959Co., 170 Kan. 531 , 227 P. 2d 571 ) where the death of an insured resulted from accidental means “While riding as a passenger in a passenger elevator.” It was there stated: “When in an action to recover death benefits under an accident insurance policy containing a provision such as is quoted in paragraph 7 of the syllabus the insurer seeks to avoid liability on the ground the accident for which recovery is sought is covered by some specific exception in the policy the burden is on the insurer to prove the facts which bring the case within the specified exception.” (Syl. f 9.) (Our emphasis.)

1959Co., 170 Kan. 531 , 227 P. 2d 571 ) where the death of an insured resulted from accidental means “While riding as a passenger in a passenger elevator.” It was there stated: “When in an action to recover death benefits under an accident insurance policy containing a provision such as is quoted in paragraph 7 of the syllabus the insurer seeks to avoid liability on the ground the accident for which recovery is sought is covered by some specific exception in the policy the burden is on the insurer to prove the facts which bring the case within the specified exception.” (Syl. f 9.) (Our emphasis.)