Repealed

40-3113. History: L. 1974, ch. 193, § 13; Repealed, L. 1977, ch. 164, § 5; July 1. Source or prior law: L. 1973, ch. 198, § 13. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. History and content of section noted in holding no-fault insurance act constitutional. Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 594, 522 P.2d 1291. 2. Section designed to prevent duplicative recovery; not so vague as to render it unconstitutional. Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 592, 594, 617, 522 P.2d 1291. 3. Provisions for reimbursement and indemnity do not apply to survivors' benefits under act. Farm & City Ins. Co. v. American Standard Ins. Co., 220 Kan. 325, 327, 328, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 552 P.2d 1363. 4. Insurer entitled to full reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits paid to insured without deduction of attorney fees or costs. Easom v. Farmers Insurance Co., 221 Kan. 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 424, 426, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438, 560 P.2d 117; Davis v. Western Insurance Companies, 221 Kan. 441, 443, 560 P.2d 133. 5. Construed; when law changed after policy purchased, new section controlled; right to setoff limited to duplicative benefit payments. Kaup v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 432 F. Supp. 922, 926. 6. Applied; nonresident owner of motor vehicle operated on Kansas highways subject to act. Mayer v. Harris, 224 Kan. 231, 233, 579 P.2d 715. 7. Cited in construing K.S.A. 40-3113a; application of provisions of K.S.A. 40-3113a relating to attorney fees retroactive. Nitchals v. Williams, 225 Kan. 285, 287, 294, 590 P.2d 582. 8. Action by insurer to recover PIP benefits paid; property loss recoverable under liability portion of policy. United States Fidelity & Guar. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Kan. App. 2d 581, 584 P.2d 1264. 9. Action by insurer to recover PIP benefits limited by two year statute of limitations. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 227 Kan. 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 608 P.2d 923. 10. Repeal of statute can only operate prospectively unless statutory language indicates contrary legislative intent. Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91, 92, 93, 100, 101, 102, 622 P.2d 641. 11. Trial court erred in finding insurer could not recover against insured who settled with third-party tort-feasor before insurer notified third party of its interests. Hawkeye Security Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 17, 18, 626 P.2d 795. 12. Insurer has no right of subrogation where plaintiff recovered from owner of steer which collided with plaintiff's car. Yunghans v. Carson, 9 Kan. App. 2d 45, 47, 670 P.2d 928 (1983). 13. Cited; failure to include anti-stacking provision in policy does not constitute a waiver of statutory prohibition against stacking. Eidemiller v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 261 Kan. 711, 719, 933 P.2d 748 (1997). 14. Cited in discussion of applicable statute of limitation involving subrogation under K.S.A. 40-284(f). Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 40 Kan. App. 2d 123, 128, 190 P.3d 989 (2008). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026