Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-454 (2026)

Liability insurance

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-454. Liability insurance. Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-454; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2021 · leading case: Nocktonick Ex Rel. Matson v. Nocktonick, 611 P.2d 135 (Kan. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nocktonick Ex Rel. Matson v. Nocktonick, 611 P.2d 135 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-454. In Alcaraz v. Welch, 205 Kan.”

Kansas Med. Mut. Ins. v. Svaty, 244 P.3d 642 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “As such, K.S.A. 60-454 comes into play. It provides: “Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.”

Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 221 P.3d 1130 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “The rule that a party may not introduce evidence of insurance coverage, see K.S.A. 60-454, is not, however, absolute.”

Wisker Ex Rel. Wisker v. Hart, 766 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2× “Evidence of a tortfeasor's insurance is excluded by K.S.A. 60-454, which provides: "Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove…”

Nirschl v. Webb, 716 P.2d 173 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 8× “It has long been the law of Kansas that, in an automobile collision case, evidence that a party was or was not insured against liability for harm suffered by another is generally inadmissible to show fault or lack thereof, because it is usually irrelevant to any of the issues in…”

Haas v. Freeman, 693 P.2d 1199 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “Appellee contends this is also consistent *682 with Kansas law as stated in K.S.A. 60-454, which prohibits the mention of insurance in a trial.”

Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 124 P.3d 57 (Kan. 2005). “at 720-24 ; K.S.A. 60-454 (evidence of liability *452 insurance inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing); see also Huxol v.”

McKissick v. Frye, 876 P.2d 1371 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 60-454. Frye contends that plaintiff’s injection of insurance into the case prejudiced the jury and she is entitled to a new trial.”

Bott v. Wendler, 453 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 2× “) See, also, K.S.A. 60-454. The ruling, however, is qualified by a number of exceptions.”

Dow Chem. Corp. v. Weevil-Cide Co., Inc., 630 F. Supp. 125 (D. Kan. 1986). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-454. On its face, this statute would appear to be rather narrow — excluding evidence of liability insurance only if such evidence is intended to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.”

Ayers v. Christiansen, 564 P.2d 458 (Kan. 1977). “” K.S.A. 60-454 provides: “Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.”

Loucks v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 101 P.3d 1271 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “If the insurer elects not to intervene, K.S.A. 60-454, which prohibits the admission of evidence of liability insurance coverage, is applicable.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.