40-287.
Same; subrogation rights.
The policy or endorsement affording the coverage specified in K.S.A. 40-284 may further provide that payment to any person of sums as damages under such coverage shall operate to subrogate the insurer to any cause of action in tort which such person may have against any other person or organization legally responsible for the bodily injury or death because of which such payment is made, and the insurer shall be subrogated, to the extent of such payment, to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may thereafter result from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization legally responsible for said bodily injury or death for which payment is made by the insurer. Such insurer may enforce such rights in its own name or in the name of the person to whom payment has been made, as their interest may appear, by proper action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
History:
L. 1968, ch. 273, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Bartee v. R.T.C. Transp., Inc., 781 P.2d 1084 (Kan. 1989).
· cites it 3× “These rights are set forth at K.S.A. 40-287: “The policy or endorsement affording the coverage specified in K.”
Tyler v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 49 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2002).
· cites it 2× “EMC points out that: (1) its policy provided no liability insurance for Hosier; (2) under K.S.A. 40-287, it would be entitled to subrogation rights against Hosier; and (3) it has no obligation to pay the judgment against Hosler.”
Kilner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 847 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Without citing any authority, State Farm concludes that the offset provisions of 40-284(e)(4) were legislatively enacted to allow reduction of workers compensation benefits in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage similar to the reductions allowed an employers insurer in…”
Benson v. Farmers Ins., 610 P.2d 605 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 3× “The court held that the settlement agreement impaired Farmers’ subrogation rights under K.S.A. 40-287 and that the agreement violated the policy terms requiring the insurer’s consent to any settlement with someone who might be liable.”
Allied Mut. Ins. v. Gordon, 811 P.2d 1112 (Kan. 1991).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 40-287. This statute further provides: “[T]he insurer shall be subrogated, to the extent of such payment, to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may thereafter result from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or…”
Dalke v. Allstate Ins., 935 P.2d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Within 60 days of receipt of this written notice, the underinsured motorist coverage insurer may substitute its payments to the insured for the tentative settlement amount.”
Horace Mann Ins. v. Ammerman, 630 F. Supp. 114 (D. Kan. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Integral to defendants’ argument is the existence of K.S.A. 40-287, which provides that an insurer that pays on an underinsured motorist policy becomes subrogated to the rights of its insured against the party or parties actually responsible for the loss.”
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INS., CO., 190 P.3d 989 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 11× “40-284(f), which provides for a right of subrogation in the event that a UIM insurer substitutes its payment for a tentative agreement to settle for liability limits: “An underinsured motorist coverage insurer shall have subrogation rights under the provisions of K.S.A. 40-287…”
Eidemiller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 933 P.2d 748 (Kan. 1997).
““(f) An underinsured motorist coverage insurer shall have subrogation rights under the provisions of K.S.A. 40-287 and amendments thereto. If a tentative agreement to settle for liability limits has been reached with an underinsured tortfeasor, written notice must be given by…”
Loucks v. Gallagher Woodsmall, Inc., 35 P.3d 782 (Kan. 2001).
“40-284(f) provides, in part: “An underinsured motorist coverage insurer shall have subrogation rights under die provisions of K.S.A. 40-287 and amendments thereto. If a tentative settlement agreement to settle for liability limits has been reached widi an .”
Loucks v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 101 P.3d 1271 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“40-284(f) and K.S.A. 40-287. The lawsuit was filed by Wendell Wurst, counsel for Farm Bureau.”
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.