40-2003.
Bond of unauthorized insurer before pleading in action; continuance; setting aside service.
(a) Before any unauthorized foreign or alien insurer shall file or cause to be filed any pleading in any action, suit or proceeding instituted against it, such unauthorized insurer shall deposit with the clerk of the court in which such action, suit or proceeding is pending cash or securities or file with such clerk a bond with good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the court, in an amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to secure the payment of any final judgment which may be rendered in such action; or (2) procure a certificate of authority to transact the business of insurance in this state.
(b) The court in any action, suit or proceeding, in which service is made in the manner provided in subsection (b) or (c) of K.S.A. 40-2002 may, in its discretion, order such postponement as may be necessary to afford the defendant reasonable opportunity to comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and to defend such action.
(c) Nothing in subsection (a) of this section is to be construed to prevent an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer from filing a motion to quash a writ or to set aside service thereof made in the manner provided in subsections (b) or (c) of K.S.A. 40-2002 on the ground either (1) that such unauthorized insurer has not done any of the acts enumerated in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 40-2002, or (2) that the person on whom service was made pursuant to subsection (c) of K.S.A. 40-2002 was not doing any of the acts therein enumerated.
History:
L. 1949, ch. 283, § 3; June 30.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case:
Youell v. Grimes, 203 F.R.D. 503 (D. Kan. 2001).
Youell v. Grimes, 203 F.R.D. 503 (D. Kan. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the purpose of the Act would be furthered by requiring Youell or the other Participating Members to provide any security- The Court also finds K.S.A. 40-2003 inapplicable here because Defendants do not seek monetary damages…”
Nicklin v. Harper, 860 P.2d 31 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“If we disregard the comma between unauthorized and foreign in K.”
In re Berry v. DeWald garnishment (D. Kan. 2025).
· cites it 14× “In response to this argument, plaintiff appears to concede that, under this statute, Princeton’s failure to obtain a certificate would not prevent its defense of the present suit – presumably including its removal of the case.”
— K.S.A. § 40-2003(a) — 3 cases
Youell v. Grimes, 203 F.R.D. 503 (D. Kan. 2001).
“Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the purpose of the Act would be furthered by requiring Youell or the other Participating Members to provide any security- The Court also finds K.S.A. 40-2003 inapplicable here because Defendants do not seek monetary damages…”
Nicklin v. Harper, 860 P.2d 31 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“If we disregard the comma between unauthorized and foreign in K.”
In re Berry v. DeWald garnishment (D. Kan. 2025).
“In response to this argument, plaintiff appears to concede that, under this statute, Princeton’s failure to obtain a certificate would not prevent its defense of the present suit – presumably including its removal of the case.”
— K.S.A. § 40-2003(b) — 1 case
In re Berry v. DeWald garnishment (D. Kan. 2025).
“In response to this argument, plaintiff appears to concede that, under this statute, Princeton’s failure to obtain a certificate would not prevent its defense of the present suit – presumably including its removal of the case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.