Printable Format40-3108. Personal injury protection benefits; authorized exclusions. Any insurer may exclude benefits required by subsection (f) of K.S.A. 40-3107: (a) For injury sustained by the named insured and relatives residing in the same household while occupying another motor vehicle owned by the named insured and not insured under the policy, or for injury sustained by any person operating the insured motor vehicle without the expressed or implied consent of the insured; and
(b) to any person suffering injury, if such person: (1) Caused injury to himself intentionally; (2) was an intentional converter of a motor vehicle at the time the injury was sustained; (3) was injured as a result of conduct within the course of a business of repairing, servicing or otherwise maintaining motor vehicles, unless such conduct occurred off of the business premises; or (4) was injured as a result of conduct in the course of loading and unloading a motor vehicle, unless the conduct occurred while occupying, entering into or alighting from such vehicle.
History: L. 1974, ch. 193, § 8; February 22.
Source or prior law:
L. 1973, ch. 198, § 8.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"No-Fault Automobile Insurance," Barry W. McCormick and Lynn Franklin Taylor II, 23 K.L.R. 141, 148 (1974).
"Stacking Personal Injury Protection Benefits: Can You? Should You?" Jay Thomas, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 20, 21 (1980).
"Recent Developments in Kansas Insurance Law: A Survey, Some Analysis, and Some Suggestions," Robert H. Jerry II, 32 K.L.R. 287, 346 (1984).
"The Clash Between Workers' Compensation Benefits and Underinsured Motorists Benefits Under Kansas Law," Brooke A. Bennett, 51 K.L.R. 155 (2002).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Applied in construing K.S.A. 40-3109 and 40-3113; right of insurer as to reimbursement and indemnity determined. Farm & City Ins. Co. v. American Standard Ins. Co., 220 Kan. 325, 331, 335, 552 P.2d 1363.
2. Statute permits insurors to exclude benefits required by Automobile Injury Reparations Act so as to preclude "stacking" personal injury protection benefits. McNemee v. Farmers Insurance Group, 228 Kan. 211, 213, 214, 215, 612 P.2d 645.
3. Endorsements in automobile insurance policies excluding stacking of personal injury protection are valid. Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91, 99, 100, 622 P.2d 641.
4. Any insurance policy provision which attempts to dilute, condition or limit minimum coverage requirements of the K.A.I.R.A. is void and invalid; policies may allow or exclude coverage above statutory limits. DeWitt v. Young, 229 Kan. 474, 478, 625 P.2d 478.
5. Mini-bike operated on highway is vehicle for which insurance is required. Kresyman v. State Farm Ins., 5 K.2d 666, 669, 623 P.2d 524.
6. Permits exclusion of PIP coverage for injuries sustained in vehicle other than that covered by insurer. Bradley v. AID Insurance Co., 6 Kan. App. 2d 367, 377, 379, 384, 385, 629 P.2d 720 (1981).
7. Policy language can liberalize but not diminish coverage required by act. Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 561, 562, 682 P.2d 689 (1984).
8. Nonresident self-insurer's duty to defend and pay employee vehicle defense costs, including attorney fees examined. Overbaugh v. Strange, 254 Kan. 605, 613, 867 P.2d 1016 (1994).