Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Barlett v. CNA

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided January 28, 2005No. 91,634Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGreen, J.

I concur with the majority’s decision that Barlett’s award should be modified to $275,000 and that Transportation is bound by the settlement agreement between Barlett and Singh, the underinsured tortfeasor. But I dissent from the majority’s decision mandating proration between tire policies of Transportation and American Family.

Ambiguity

The trial court determined that the pro rata clause under the “other insurance” clause was ambiguous. Transportation’s pro rata clause reads as follows:

“When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Brumley v. LeeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1998
  2. Wilks v. Allstate Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. Quenzer v. QuenzerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
  4. Guillan v. WattsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1991
  5. Ball Ex Rel. Ball v. Midwestern InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API