40-2205.
Statements made in application for policy; effect.
(A) The insured shall not be bound by any statement made in an application for a policy unless a copy of such application is attached to or endorsed on the policy when issued as a part thereof. If any such policy delivered or issued for delivery to any person in this state shall be reinstated or renewed, and the insured or the beneficiary or assignee of such policy shall make written request to the insurer for a copy of the application, if any, for such reinstatement or renewal, the insurer shall within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of such request at its home office or any branch office of the insurer, deliver or mail to the person making such request, a copy of such application. If such copy shall not be so delivered or mailed, the insurer shall be precluded from introducing such application as evidence in any action or proceeding based upon or involving such policy or its reinstatement or renewal.
(B) No alteration of any written application for any such policy shall be made by any person other than the applicant without his written consent, except that insertions may be made by the insurer, for administrative purposes only, in such manner as to indicate clearly that such insertions are not to be ascribed to the applicant.
(C) The falsity of any material statement in the application for any policy covered by this act may not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless the false statement has actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due and payable: Provided, however, That any recovery resulting from the operation of this section shall not bar the right to render the policy void in accordance with its provisions.
History:
L. 1951, ch. 296, § 5; L. 1963, ch. 264, § 1; L. 1965, ch. 305, § 1; June 30.
Notes of Decisions
Van Enter., Inc. v. Avemco Ins., 231 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Kan. 2002).
· cites it 10× “13 *1089 Based on the statutory language of Article 22, the Court concludes that Section 40-2205 does not apply to policies for stop loss or excess loss insurance such as the one between Van and AVEMCO.”
Chism v. Prot. Life Ins., 234 P.3d 780 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 4× “To establish fraud in this context, Protective must establish: (1) There was an untrue statement of fact made by the insured or an omission of material fact, (2) the insured knew the statement was untrue, (3) the insured made the statement with the intent to deceive or…”
Nat'l Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 225 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2010).
“Indeed, K.S.A. 40-2205(C), which admittedly concerns policies of accident and sickness insurance, seems to point us in the opposite direction: “The falsity of any material statement in the application for a policy covered by this act may not bar the right to recovery thereunder…”
Becher v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (D. Kan. 2019).
· cites it 2× “") ); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-2205 (providing that "[t]he insured shall not be bound by any statement made in an application for a policy unless a copy of such application is attached to or endorsed on the policy when issued as a part thereof").”
Am. Special Risk Mgmt. Corp. v. Cahow, 192 P.3d 614 (Kan. 2008).
“” See K.S.A. 40-2205(A) (insured not bound by any statement made in application unless copy of “application is attached to or endorsed on the policy when issued as part thereof’).”
Dronge v. Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio, 511 F. Supp. 1 (D. Kan. 1979).
“Washington, supra, defined materiality under K.S.A. 40-2205, which deals with individual accident or sickness insurance policies.”
Waxse v. Reserve Life Ins., 809 P.2d 533 (Kan. 1991).
“K.S.A. 40-2205(C). The estate first argues Behnke did not make an untrue statement on the application.”
Schneider v. Washington Nat'l Ins., 437 P.2d 798 (Kan. 1968).
“, 40-2205 (C), (K.S.A. 40-2205 [C]). If the policy was valid and not subject to recision then defendant took the alternative position that plaintiff’s disability resulted from sickness rather than accident.”
Martin v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 422 P.2d 1009 (Kan. 1967).
· cites it 2× “" (K.S.A. 40-2205 [C].) The 1963 amendment brought the effect of false statements made in the application for health and accident insurance in harmony with the provision pertaining to life insurance.”
Long v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. (D. Kan. 2020).
· cites it 26× “Long argues that, under this provision, his failure to disclose his past conviction cannot be used to deny him coverage because that misrepresentation did not contribute to the loss event at issue (a fire).”
Chism v. Prot. Life Ins., 195 P.3d 776 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 40-2205(C); Waxse v. Reserve Life Ins.”
— K.S.A. § 40-2205(A) — 1 case
Am. Special Risk Mgmt. Corp. v. Cahow, 192 P.3d 614 (Kan. 2008).
“” See K.S.A. 40-2205(A) (insured not bound by any statement made in application unless copy of “application is attached to or endorsed on the policy when issued as part thereof’).”
— K.S.A. § 40-2205(C) — 4 cases
Chism v. Prot. Life Ins., 234 P.3d 780 (Kan. 2010).
“To establish fraud in this context, Protective must establish: (1) There was an untrue statement of fact made by the insured or an omission of material fact, (2) the insured knew the statement was untrue, (3) the insured made the statement with the intent to deceive or…”
Nat'l Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 225 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2010).
“Indeed, K.S.A. 40-2205(C), which admittedly concerns policies of accident and sickness insurance, seems to point us in the opposite direction: “The falsity of any material statement in the application for a policy covered by this act may not bar the right to recovery thereunder…”
Waxse v. Reserve Life Ins., 809 P.2d 533 (Kan. 1991).
“K.S.A. 40-2205(C). The estate first argues Behnke did not make an untrue statement on the application.”
— K.S.A. § 40-2205(a) — 1 case
Van Enter., Inc. v. Avemco Ins., 231 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Kan. 2002).
“13 *1089 Based on the statutory language of Article 22, the Court concludes that Section 40-2205 does not apply to policies for stop loss or excess loss insurance such as the one between Van and AVEMCO.”
— K.S.A. § 40-2205(c) — 1 case
Long v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. (D. Kan. 2020).
“Long argues that, under this provision, his failure to disclose his past conviction cannot be used to deny him coverage because that misrepresentation did not contribute to the loss event at issue (a fire).”
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.