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

K.S.A. § 40-3420 (2026)

Professional corporation which reorganizes as not-for-profit corporation is continuing concern for purposes of obtaining basic coverage under health care provider insurance availability act

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

40-3420. Professional corporation which reorganizes as not-for-profit corporation is continuing concern for purposes of obtaining basic coverage under health care provider insurance availability act. (a) Any professional corporation organized under the professional corporation law of Kansas that reorganizes as a Kansas not-for-profit corporation and seeks to comply with the provisions of the health care provider insurance availability act shall be considered to be a continuing concern for the purposes of obtaining basic coverage pursuant to the health care provider insurance availability act and shall not be considered to be an inactive health care provider. Any insurer issuing basic coverage to such corporation shall provide coverage for all claims made during the term of the policy issued which arose while the not-for-profit corporation was operating in this state as a professional corporation under the professional corporation law of Kansas.

(b) This section shall be part of and supplemental to the health care provider insurance availability act.

History: L. 1982, ch. 207, § 2; April 29.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. On question certified (K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq.), K.S.A. 40-3403(h) abrogating certain common-law vicarious liability held constitutional. Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 839, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1991–2003 · leading case: Bair v. Peck, 811 P.2d 1176 (Kan. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bair v. Peck, 811 P.2d 1176 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “Recognizing that Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights requires an adequate substitute remedy before the legislature can abolish a common-law remedy, the question squarely before us is whether a quid pro quo providing a substitute remedy must be adopted simultaneously with the…”
Marshall v. Kansas Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 73 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2003). “40-3414, K.S.A. 40-3420, the Act neither requires excess limits coverage nor prohibits insurers from offering excess limits liability insurance.”
Glassman v. Costello, 986 P.2d 1050 (Kan. 1999). “231), practically all of which have been amended one or more times or repealed, and four new sections have been added (K.S.A. 40-3420 through 40-3423). Some of the changes in the *525 original Act have been beneficial to malpractice claimants while others have benefitted medical…”
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.