Clayton v. Alliance Mut. Cas. Co., 46902
| Decision Date | 03 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46902,46902 |
| Parties | Sanders B. CLAYTON, Appellee, v. ALLIANCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, and Darrell D. Bedore. Rubye CLAYTON, Appellee, v. ALLIANCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, and Darrell D. Bedore. Max A. CLAYTON, Appellee, v. ALLIANCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, and Darrell D. Bedore. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Alliance Mutual Casualty Company, appellant, has filed a motion for rehearing. Leave was granted the Kansas Association of Property and Casualty Insurance Companies, Inc. (Association) to file a brief amicus curiae. The original opinion in this case was filed July 14, 1973, and is reported as Clayton v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., 212 Kan. 640, 512 P.2d 507.
Appellant and the Association contend the restrictive provisions contained in the insurance contracts affording appellees uninsured motorists coverage have been expressly approved by the Legislature. Their argument is premised on the provision in K.S.A.1972 Supp., 40-284 which states:
'. . . Provisions affording such insurance protection against uninsured motorists issued in this state prior to the effective date of this act shall, when afforded by any authorized insurer, be deemed, subject to the limits prescribed in this section, to satisfy the requirements of this section.' (Emphasis supplied.)
We need not reiterate the principles of statutory construction; it is sufficient to say the clause does not except appellees' policies from the statute's limitation. The provisions of the statute (K.S.A.1972 Supp., 40-284) must be considered a part of every automobile liability policy the same as if written therein. (Simpson v. KFB Insurance Co., Inc., 209 Kan. 620, 498 P.2d 71; Page v. Insurance Co. of North America, 256 Cal.App.2d 374, 64 Cal.Rptr. 89.) Where the policy's provisions regarding uninsured motorists coverage are more restrictive than the relevant statutory provisions requiring such coverage, the requirements of the statute will prevail. (Ampy v. Insurance Company, 200 Va. 396, 105 S.E.2d 839.) Attempts by the insurer to diminish the statutorily mandated uninsured motorists protection are contrary to public policy. (Clayton v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., supra; Prosk v. Allstate Ins. Co., 82 Ill.App.2d 457, 226 N.E.2d 498, 25 A.L.R.3d 1294.) That the Legislature requires an uninsured motorists provision in every policy, unless expressly waived by the insured, added to the fact that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manzanares v. Bell
...construed to provide the intended protection. (Clayton v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., 212 Kan. 640, 512 P.2d 507, reh. den., 213 Kan. 84, 515 P.2d 1115.) Senate Bill 918 repealed the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act and expresses again the legislative objective of correcting the in......
-
Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...brings to the subject of arbitration generally. Contrast Clayton v. Alliance Mut. Cas. Co., 212 Kan. 640, 512 P.2d 507, reh. den. 213 Kan. 84, 515 P.2d 1115 (jurisdiction not enforcing arbitration, takes view that arbitration clause is invalid in uninsured motorist coverage), with Wales v. ......
-
Bradley v. Aid Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 213 Kan. 442, 517 P.2d 173 (1973); Clayton v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., 212 Kan. 640, 512 P.2d 507, reh. denied 213 Kan. 84, 515 P.2d 1115 (1973); Sturdy v. Allied Mutal Ins. Co., 203 Kan. 783, 457 P.2d 34 (1969). In McNemee v. Farmers Inurance Group, 228 Kan. at 214-15, 612 P......
-
Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Gilbert, 64220
...in a policyholder receiving what he has paid for on each policy, up to the amount of his damages." Clayton v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., 213 Kan. 84, 84-85, 515 P.2d 1115 (1973). In two subsequent cases, the court "Insurance policy provisions which purport to condition, limit, or dilute ......