Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Interrogatories Restrained," Roger D. Stanton, 37 J.B.A.K. 7, 60 (1968).

The legal effect of jury answers to special verdict questions under Kansas comparative negligence law, David E. Pierce, 16 W.L.J. 114, 123 (1976).

"Liability Insurance Policies Are Admissible in Punitive Damage Cases," Jerry R. Palmer, 4 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 19 (1981).

"New Developments in Kansas Insurance Law," Robert H. Jerry, II, 37 K.L.R. 841, 879 (1989).

"Closing Argument: The Final Fatal Flaw," Roger W. Badeker, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 37, 40 (1991).

"Victim's Rights Versus Special Interest: A Difficult Choice for the Kansas Legislature in Its Fight to Abrogate the Collateral Source Rule," Melinda Young, 45 W.L.J. 135 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Liability insurance policy limits not subject to disclosure under K.S.A. 60-233 and 60-226(b). Muck, Administratix v. Claflin, 197 Kan. 594, 600, 419 P.2d 1017.

2. Evidence tending to show liability insurance coverage generally inadmissible; exceptions. Bott v. Wendler, 203 Kan. 212, 226, 236, 453 P.2d 100.

3. Cited in considering question of insurance coverage mentioned in appellant's brief; held, not an issue in the case. Alcaraz v. Welch, 205 Kan. 163, 166, 468 P.2d 185.

4. Mentioned in holding that existence of liability insurance and policy limits thereof are subject to disclosure at pretrial conference. Cropp v. Woleslagel, 207 Kan. 627, 629, 631, 485 P.2d 1271.

5. When evidence shows mention of insurance purely inadvertent, no error. Langley v. Byron Stout Pontiac, Inc., 208 Kan. 199, 203, 491 P.2d 891.

6. Use of word "insurance" forbidden during trial of damage action. Schmidt v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Ins. Co., 208 Kan. 308, 315, 491 P.2d 947.

7. Wrongful death action; joinder of uninsured motorist carrier; procedure prejudicially erroneous. Winner v. Ratzlaff, 211 Kan. 59, 66, 505 P.2d 606.

8. Evidence of no insurance is as inadmissible on issue of fault as is evidence of insurance. Ayers v. Christiansen, 222 Kan. 225, 228, 564 P.2d 458.

9. Elimination of parent-child immunity from suit by majority is based on existence of mandatory motor vehicle liability insurance (dissenting opinion). Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, 227 Kan. 758, 774, 611 P.2d 135.

10. Where insurance company is party to lawsuit, mention of relationship with other defendants not prejudicial per se. Klinzmann v. Beale, 9 Kan. App. 2d 20, 28, 670 P.2d 67 (1983).

11. Procedure for underinsured motorist claims distinguished from uninsured; underinsured carrier bound by any judgment. Haas v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 677, 682, 683, 693 P.2d 1199 (1985).

12. Cited; proper to exclude defendant insurer (K.S.A. 66-1,128) at jury trial where comparative fault and damages sole issues. Nirschl v. Webb, 239 Kan. 90, 94, 716 P.2d 173 (1986).

13. Cited; while nonintervening insurer bound by determination of damages suffered, it retains right to contest liability. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Ammerman, 630 F. Supp. 114, 117 (1986).

14. Cited; Wisconsin's direct action statute as violation of Kansas public policy examined. Dow Chemical Corp. v. Weevil-Cide Co., Inc., 630 F. Supp. 125, 128 (1986).

15. Cited; analogy between defendant's insurance and collateral sources paid to plaintiff as not valid examined. Wisker v. Hart, 244 Kan. 36, 46, 766 P.2d 168 (1988).

16. Application of statute examined where insured brings action against own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits. Gifford v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Kan. App. 2d 740, 745, 799 P.2d 105 (1990).

17. Whether plaintiff's counsel asking potential jurors about employment in insurance industry prejudiced jury examined. McKissick v. Frye, 255 Kan. 566, 584, 876 P.2d 1371 (1994).

18. Whether judge erred by excluding evidence plaintiff had originally been referred to physician by defendant examined. Stowers v. Rimel, 19 Kan. App. 2d 723, 724, 875 P.2d 1002 (1994).