K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-3802 (2026)

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

60-3802.

History: L. 1988, ch. 222, § 2; Repealed, L. 2014, ch. 84, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1993–1996 · leading case: Thompson v. KFB Ins., 850 P.2d 773 (Kan. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thompson v. KFB Ins., 850 P.2d 773 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 4× “60-3806 provides for severability of any invalid clause or provision; K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3807 provides for application of the Act to causes of action which accrue on or after the effective date.”
Unified Sch. Dist. No. 229 v. State, 885 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1994). “We hold that the provision of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3802 which allows evidence of collateral source benefits where claimant demands judgment for damages in excess of $150,000 violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and §…”
Hess v. St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., 869 P.2d 598 (Kan. 1994). “These errors require that a new trial be held. The other issue, the admissibility of the workers compensation benefits as collateral source benefits, is moot.”
Phipps v. Irby Const. Co., 636 So. 2d 353 (Miss. 1993). “The invalidity of the provision of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3802 classifying claimants by the amounts of their demand does affect the remainder of the Act because, absent the invalid provision, the intent of the legislature would not be carried out.”
Aves ex rel. Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996). “More recently, the legislature enacted K.S.A. 60-3802 (1992 Supp.), which abrogates the traditional collateral source rule in cases in which the plaintiff seeks recovery in excess of $150,000.”
Aves by & Through Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996). “More recently, the legislature enacted K.S.A. 60-3802 (1992 Supp.), which abrogates the traditional collateral source rule in cases in which the plaintiff seeks recovery in excess of $150,000.”
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.