Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 30, 1997No. 74,666Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*353Six J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I dissent from the majority’s view that appraisal is merely a form of arbitration and that K.S.A. 5-401(c)(l) precludes appraisal provisions in insurance contracts.

The question of Trinity’s liability under the policy is not at issue. The dispute centers on an appraisal of the property after the fire to determine the amount of the loss. The Trinity policy references an appraisement, not an arbitration. The method for determining the amount of the loss should not be judged by the strict rules applicable to a K.S.A. 5-401 arbitration and award.

“[T]…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Jefferson Insurance of New York v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Beard v. Mount Carroll Mutual Fire InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1990
  3. Guild v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
  4. Atlas Construction Co., Inc. v. Indiana Ins. Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989

5 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