9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Coe v. Security National Insurancegreen1 sentence1992Where reasonable proof of loss is sent, “no benefits shall be deemed overdue where the insurer or self-insurer has reasonable proof to establish that it is not responsible for payment of those particular benefits, or when in the sound discretion of the trial court the circumstances confronting the insurer when the claim for benefits was denied furnished just cause or excuse for refusal to pay such claim.” Coe, 228 Kan. at 632. | 1 | 1 |
Faught Ex Rel. Faught v. Washamgreen1 sentence1978The court stated: “Under an automobile liability insurance policy which authorizes and empowers the insurer to ‘make such negotiations and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient,’ a settlement by the insurer of a claim by a third person against the insured, made without the insured’s consent or against his protests of nonliability, and not thereafter ratified by him, will not ordinarily bar an action by the insured against the person receiving the settlement, on a claim arising out of the same state of facts.” (Syl. 1.) In Faught v. Washam, 329 S.W.2d 588, 594-95 (Mo. 1959), the | 1 | 1 |
Torres Pagán v. Municipio Autónomo de Poncegreen1 sentence1963See Anderson v. Surety Co., 107 Kan. 375 , 191 Pac. 583 , wherein an action was brought by two insureds (employers) to recover from their insurer damages they had sustained in a tort action brought by an employee, where the insurer could have set up as a defense in the tort action the fact that the employee and the two insureds were engaged in using dynamite in a coal mine in violation of 'law, and that the injury to the employee was thereby occasioned, it was held that the fact could not be set up by the insurer as a defense in the subsequent action by the insureds to recover against their in | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Southern Surety Co.green1 sentence1963See Anderson v. Surety Co., 107 Kan. 375 , 191 Pac. 583 , wherein an action was brought by two insureds (employers) to recover from their insurer damages they had sustained in a tort action brought by an employee, where the insurer could have set up as a defense in the tort action the fact that the employee and the two insureds were engaged in using dynamite in a coal mine in violation of 'law, and that the injury to the employee was thereby occasioned, it was held that the fact could not be set up by the insurer as a defense in the subsequent action by the insureds to recover against their in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finney
green
2 sentences2004State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finney, 244 Kan. 545, 553 , 770 P.2d 460 (1989). 2004State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finney, 244 Kan. 545, 553 , 770 P.2d 460 (1989). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sparks v. St. Paul Insurance
green
1 sentence2003Focusing on the public policy of simultaneous liability coverage, the Sparks court ignored the fact that simultaneous coverage was not at issue. 100 N.J. at 332 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
West American Insurance Company v. Park, Suzanne Suzanne Park
green
1 sentence1996In its conclusion, the court *285 stated: “We are confident that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not allow an insurer to challenge the legality of a policy which it wrote, for which it collected premiums, and on which it gave the insured every reason to rely.” 933 F.2d at 1240 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lohman v. Woodruff
green
2 sentences1983Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Home Oil Co., Inc., 181 Kan. 507 , 312 P.2d 1079 (1957); Lohman v. Woodruff, 224 Kan. 51 , 578 P.2d 251 (1978); Annot., 32 A.L.R.2d 937 and Later Case Service. 1983Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Home Oil Co., Inc., 181 Kan. 507 , 312 P.2d 1079 (1957); Lohman v. Woodruff, 224 Kan. 51 , 578 P.2d 251 (1978); Annot., 32 A.L.R.2d 937 and Later Case Service. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Home Oil Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1983Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Home Oil Co., Inc., 181 Kan. 507 , 312 P.2d 1079 (1957); Lohman v. Woodruff, 224 Kan. 51 , 578 P.2d 251 (1978); Annot., 32 A.L.R.2d 937 and Later Case Service. 1983Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Home Oil Co., Inc., 181 Kan. 507 , 312 P.2d 1079 (1957); Lohman v. Woodruff, 224 Kan. 51 , 578 P.2d 251 (1978); Annot., 32 A.L.R.2d 937 and Later Case Service. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McNamara v. Chapman
green
1 sentence1943When an injured party recovers a final judgment against a person insured under an indemnity insurance policy for injuries caused by such insured, but fails to recover a judgment against the insurer in a supplemental action in which the insured and insurer are parties defendant under section 9510-4, General Code, on the sole ground that the insurance policy was void because of the failure of the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the defense of the action of the injured party against the insured, such adjudication in favor of the insurer is determinative of the result in its favor in anot | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Mitchell Grain & Supply Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
neutral
2 sentences1942(Grain & Supply Co. v. Casualty Co., 108 Kan. 379 , 195 Pac. 978 , 16 A. L. 1942(Grain & Supply Co. v. Casualty Co., 108 Kan. 379 , 195 Pac. 978 , 16 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.