Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 49729
| Decision Date | 09 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 49729,49729 |
| Citation | 595 P.2d 1102,226 Kan. 68 |
| Parties | Mildred R. HILLHOUSE, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a corporation, and Frederick Bailey, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Provision contained in an automobile liability insurance policy excluding government-owned vehicles from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicles" is held void as an attempt to dilute the coverage mandated by K.S.A. 40-284.
Donald W. Vasos of Scott, Daily, Vasos & Lester, Kansas City, argued the cause and was on brief, for appellant.
Robert D. Benham of McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., Kansas City, argued the cause and was on brief, for appellees.
The sole issue in this case is the validity of a provision in an automobile insurance policy excluding government-owned motor vehicles from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicles." We hold that the limiting definition is an attempt to reduce coverage required by the Kansas Uninsured Motorist statute, K.S.A. 40-284, and is therefore void and unenforceable.
Plaintiff, Mildred R. Hillhouse, sustained personal injury when the car she was driving was rear ended by a dump truck owned by the city of Kansas City, Missouri, and driven by Frederick Bailey, a city employee. It developed that Bailey had no driver's license; he was intoxicated; he owned no car of his own and had no personal policy of liability insurance.
Kansas City, Missouri, under the authority of Mo.Rev. Statutes 71.185, had purchased liability insurance and had a policy in effect on the date of the occurrence; the city and its insurance carrier, however, denied liability because Bailey was on a personal errand and was not authorized to use the city's truck at the time and place of the collision.
Plaintiff was insured in two separate policies of automobile liability insurance issued in Kansas by defendant Farmers Insurance Company. When Kansas City's insurer denied coverage, plaintiff brought this action under the uninsured motorist provision of her policies, by which Farmers agrees:
Farmers moved for summary judgment, alleging that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. City of Elkins
...151 (1972); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky, 918 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (involved underinsured coverage); Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co., 226 Kan. 68, 595 P.2d 1102 (1979); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield, 122 S.W.3d 36 (Ky.2003) (involved underinsured coverage); Mednick v. State Farm......
-
Jenkins v. City of Elkins
...App. Ct. 1972); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky, 918 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (involved underinsured coverage); Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co., 595 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1979); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield, 122 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. 2003) (involved underinsured coverage); Mednick v. State Farm......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield, 2001-SC-0969-DG.
...202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Franey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5 Ill.App.3d 1040, 285 N.E.2d 151 (1972); Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 226 Kan. 68, 595 P.2d 1102 (1979); Powell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 233 So.2d 38 (La.Ct.App.1970); Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 41......
-
Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...285 N.E.2d 151 (1972) ; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky , 918 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (UIM coverage); Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co. , 226 Kan. 68, 595 P.2d 1102 (Kan. 1979) ; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield , 122 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. 2003) (UIM coverage); Mednick v. State Farm Mut. Auto.......
-
Uninsured Underinsured Motorist Insurance a Sleeping Giant
...is owned by a self-insurer or any governmental entity. This reverses the rationale of the ruling of Hillhouse v. Farmers Ins. Co., 226 Kan. 68, 595 P.2d 1102 (1979). This exclusion generally presents no problem because the self-insurer or governmental entity will be sufficiently able to res......
-
Underinsured motorist coverage
...Florida: Johns v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 337 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976); Kansas: Hill House v. Farmers Ins. Co. Inc. , 226 Kan. 68, 595 P.2d 1102 (1979); Arizona: McClellan v. Sentry Indem. Co. , 140 Ariz. 558, 683 P.2d 753 (1984). Punitive Damages —The duty of good faith a......