K.S.A. » Chapter 05
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 5-401 (2026)

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

5-401.

History: L. 1973, ch. 24, § 1; L. 1977, ch. 25, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 38, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 155, § 2; Repealed, L. 2018, ch. 90, § 35; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 50× “Friday contended that the appraisal provision was merely an arbitration agreement by another name, it violated K.S.A. 5-401, and it was not enforceable.”
In the Matter of the Arbitration of Mut. Reinsurance Bureau, Claimant-Appellee v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 969 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 1992). · cites it 15× “Appellant contends that an arbitration clause in a reinsurance agreement between it and Appellee is unenforceable under K.S.A. § 5-401 and the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.”
Skewes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 829 P.2d 874 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 22× “(1988), preempts K.S.A. 5-401, which prohibits the arbitration of tort claims; and (2) whether plaintiff Blaine Skewes' retaliatory discharge claim arose out of or in connection with his employer's "business" and, consequently, is subject to arbitration under the Uniform…”
Cox v. Woodmen of the World Ins., 556 S.E.2d 397 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “However, as the Tenth Circuit noted, the statutes in Hamilton differed from K.S.A. § 5-401 in a very important aspect in that those statutes governed arbitration in general and did not mention “contracts of insurance.”
Jackson Trak Grp., Inc. Ex Rel. Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Mid States Port Auth., 751 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 4× “Mid States alleged (1) that venue was improper in Sedgwick County; (2) that the arbitrators’ award for the improper seizure of the equipment was barred by res judicata due to the prior Phillips County proceeding; (3) that Jackson Trak had waived arbitration by submitting part of…”
Baxter v. John Weitzel, Inc., 871 P.2d 855 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 22× “K.S.A. 5-401 states: “(a) A written agreement tó submit any existing controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable and irrevocable except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
City of Andover v. Sw. Bell Telepnone, L.P., 153 P.3d 561 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to K.S.A. 5-401(b), this claim by [the City] is a case wherein ‘grounds as exist at law or in equify for the revocation of a(ny) contract’ are being asserted.”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 874 F. Supp. 1204 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 9× “*1207 The Kansas version of the Uniform Arbitration Act, K.S.A. §§ 5-401 through 5-422, excludes from its definition of enforceable arbitration agreements those related to insurance contracts.”
Barbara Elizabeth Lawson v. Life of the South Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 9-9-2 (c)(3); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 5-401 ; Mo. Ann. Stat. § 435.”
City of Lenexa v. C. L. Fairley Constr. Co., 777 P.2d 851 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 7× “Significant to the court’s holding was its determination that K.S.A. 5-401 which provides that written agreements to arbitrate are “valid, enforceable aiid irrevocable,” makes no distinction between binding and nonbinding arbitration.”
Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 752 P.2d 645 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2× “5-401 provides: “Validity of arbitration agreement, (a) A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable and irrevocable except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Mut. Reinsurance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins., 750 F. Supp. 455 (D. Kan. 1990). · cites it 18× “” It was and remains GPM’s position that K.S.A. 5-401 prohibits the enforceability of an arbitration clause in any “contract of insurance.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 5-401(a) — 4 cases
Skewes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 829 P.2d 874 (Kan. 1992). “(1988), preempts K.S.A. 5-401, which prohibits the arbitration of tort claims; and (2) whether plaintiff Blaine Skewes' retaliatory discharge claim arose out of or in connection with his employer's "business" and, consequently, is subject to arbitration under the Uniform…”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 874 F. Supp. 1204 (D. Kan. 1995). “*1207 The Kansas version of the Uniform Arbitration Act, K.S.A. §§ 5-401 through 5-422, excludes from its definition of enforceable arbitration agreements those related to insurance contracts.”
All. Platforms, Inc. v. Behrens, 305 P.3d 30 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
Flenory Ex Rel. Flenory v. Eagle's Nest Apts., 22 P.3d 613 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(b) — 5 cases
City of Andover v. Sw. Bell Telepnone, L.P., 153 P.3d 561 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Pursuant to K.S.A. 5-401(b), this claim by [the City] is a case wherein ‘grounds as exist at law or in equify for the revocation of a(ny) contract’ are being asserted.”
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997). “Friday contended that the appraisal provision was merely an arbitration agreement by another name, it violated K.S.A. 5-401, and it was not enforceable.”
Beeson v. Erickson, 917 P.2d 901 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
Alexander v. Everhart, 7 P.3d 1282 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
Alexander v. Everhart, 3 P.3d 575 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(c) — 2 cases
Skewes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 829 P.2d 874 (Kan. 1992). “(1988), preempts K.S.A. 5-401, which prohibits the arbitration of tort claims; and (2) whether plaintiff Blaine Skewes' retaliatory discharge claim arose out of or in connection with his employer's "business" and, consequently, is subject to arbitration under the Uniform…”
Hill v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (D. Kan. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(c)(1) — 2 cases
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997). “Friday contended that the appraisal provision was merely an arbitration agreement by another name, it violated K.S.A. 5-401, and it was not enforceable.”
Solaris Power Servs., LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (W.D. Mo. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(c)(2) — 3 cases
Baxter v. John Weitzel, Inc., 871 P.2d 855 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “K.S.A. 5-401 states: “(a) A written agreement tó submit any existing controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable and irrevocable except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 924 P.2d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
Hill v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (D. Kan. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(c)(3) — 3 cases
City of Andover v. Sw. Bell Telepnone, L.P., 153 P.3d 561 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Pursuant to K.S.A. 5-401(b), this claim by [the City] is a case wherein ‘grounds as exist at law or in equify for the revocation of a(ny) contract’ are being asserted.”
Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc., 153 P.3d 550 (Kan. 2007).
Diederich v. Yarnevich, 196 P.3d 411 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 5-401(c)(l) — 2 cases
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997). “Friday contended that the appraisal provision was merely an arbitration agreement by another name, it violated K.S.A. 5-401, and it was not enforceable.”
Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 924 P.2d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
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.