K.S.A. » Chapter 40
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 40-3113 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

40-3113.

History: L. 1974, ch. 193, § 13; Repealed, L. 1977, ch. 164, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1974–2008 · leading case: Farm & City Ins. v. Am. Stand. Ins., 552 P.2d 1363 (Kan. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farm & City Ins. v. Am. Stand. Ins., 552 P.2d 1363 (Kan. 1976). · cites it 14× “As a result of the construction placed on various provisions of the act the trial court held that sub-section 40-3113 (a) does not create rights of reimbursement in favor of an insuring company for PIP benefits accruing after the death of an insured, i.”
Easom v. Farmers Ins. Co., 560 P.2d 117 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 10× “, insurer of plaintiff-appellant, is entitled to reimbursement, pursuant to K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113 ( a ), in the full amount of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits previously paid to plaintiff without a deduction for attorney fees and costs of litigation.”
Farmers Ins. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 608 P.2d 923 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 12× “Farmers notified Latham’s liability carrier, Farm Bureau, that PIP benefits had been paid to King and that Farmers claimed a lien as a result of the payments pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113, now K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3113a.”
Davis v. Hughes, 622 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 9× “The final issue is whether the trial court erred in applying the repeal of K.S.A. 1976 Supp. 40-3113(e) retrospectively.”
Nitchals v. Williams, 590 P.2d 582 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 4× “There the court construed K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113 which provided in pertinent part as follows: “40-3113.”
Manzanares v. Bell, 522 P.2d 1291 (Kan. 1974). · cites it 3× “(3) Section 13 ( a ) changed K.S.A. 40-3113 ( a ) to require an injured person repay his insurance carrier duplicative PIP benefits recovered from the tort-feasor.”
Howard v. Farmers Ins., 619 P.2d 160 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 40-3113 was amended in 1977 to provide the PIP insurer with subrogation rights to recoveries from third-party tortfeasors for survivor or funeral benefits paid, said amendments to be effective July 1, 1977.”
Bardwell v. Kester, 815 P.2d 120 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The previous statute, K.S.A. 40-3113 (Weeks), contained no provision providing for attorney fees.”
Baxter State Bank v. Bernhardt, 985 F. Supp. 1259 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 4× “Nitchals involved K.S.A. § 40-3113, which provided for the reimbursement of a PIP insurer for benefits paid to an insured who later recovered from a third party.”
Russell v. MacKey, 592 P.2d 902 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 2× “” In Easom , we held that the reimbursement of a PIP insurer for PIP benefits “received” or “payable” under K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113(a) is limited to those damages recovered by an injured insured which are duplicative of damages included in such PIP benefits.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hokanson, 584 P.2d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “USF&G paid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to Katherine Hawthorne under her policy, and pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113(c) sued both the driver, Sue Hokanson, and the passenger who yanked the steering wheel, Debra Cookson, to recover the PIP benefits in the amount of $2,302.”
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 104 P.3d 991 (Kan. 2005). “However, in those cases, the statutes at issue did not set out the damages recoverable for specific violations as does K.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 40-3113(a) — 6 cases
Russell v. MacKey, 592 P.2d 902 (Kan. 1979). “” In Easom , we held that the reimbursement of a PIP insurer for PIP benefits “received” or “payable” under K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113(a) is limited to those damages recovered by an injured insured which are duplicative of damages included in such PIP benefits.”
Nitchals v. Williams, 590 P.2d 582 (Kan. 1979). “There the court construed K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113 which provided in pertinent part as follows: “40-3113.”
Howard v. Farmers Ins., 619 P.2d 160 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “” K.S.A. 40-3113 was amended in 1977 to provide the PIP insurer with subrogation rights to recoveries from third-party tortfeasors for survivor or funeral benefits paid, said amendments to be effective July 1, 1977.”
Farmers Ins. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 608 P.2d 923 (Kan. 1980). “Farmers notified Latham’s liability carrier, Farm Bureau, that PIP benefits had been paid to King and that Farmers claimed a lien as a result of the payments pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113, now K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3113a.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Kroeker, 676 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 40-3113(c) — 4 cases
Farmers Ins. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 608 P.2d 923 (Kan. 1980). “Farmers notified Latham’s liability carrier, Farm Bureau, that PIP benefits had been paid to King and that Farmers claimed a lien as a result of the payments pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113, now K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3113a.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hokanson, 584 P.2d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “USF&G paid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to Katherine Hawthorne under her policy, and pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113(c) sued both the driver, Sue Hokanson, and the passenger who yanked the steering wheel, Debra Cookson, to recover the PIP benefits in the amount of $2,302.”
Davis v. Hughes, 622 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1981). “The final issue is whether the trial court erred in applying the repeal of K.S.A. 1976 Supp. 40-3113(e) retrospectively.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Kroeker, 676 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 40-3113(e) — 1 case
Davis v. Hughes, 622 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1981). “The final issue is whether the trial court erred in applying the repeal of K.S.A. 1976 Supp. 40-3113(e) retrospectively.”
— K.S.A. § 40-3113(fe) — 1 case
Farmers Ins. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 608 P.2d 923 (Kan. 1980). “Farmers notified Latham’s liability carrier, Farm Bureau, that PIP benefits had been paid to King and that Farmers claimed a lien as a result of the payments pursuant to K.S.A. 40-3113, now K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3113a.”
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.