Opinion ID: 1390684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Construction of Legally Entitled to Recover

Text: Defendant contends plaintiff's failure to file a claim in the estate of the uninsured motorist within the applicable period of limitations precludes a finding that the insured was legally entitled to recover from the operator of the uninsured vehicle. Defendant's argument proceeds on the theory the policy provisions requiring the insured to be legally entitled to recover should be interpreted to require that suit must be filed against the uninsured motorist or his estate within the period allowable for wrongful death actions. The uninsured motorist statute, K.S.A. 40-284, which we have heretofore determined to be applicable to the facts of this case, contains a provision similar to that found in the policies. The statute requires all automobile liability insurance policies to provide for payment of part of all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the uninsured owner or operator of the motor vehicle. We have recently construed this provision of the new statute by holding that the phrase legally entitled to recover means an insured must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist which gave rise to the damages and to prove the extent of those damages, but it is not necessary that judgment first be obtained against the uninsured motorist in order to recover against an uninsured motorist liability carrier. We also held that an action could be maintained against an insurer without joining the uninsured motorist. ( Winner v. Ratzlaff, supra.) Accordingly, the trial court was correct in ruling that plaintiff could maintain an action in contract directly against the uninsured motorist insurance carrier and the five-year statute of limitations on written contracts as prescribed by K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 60-511, was applicable.