Estate of Bingham v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Friedman v. Alliance Insurance (Kan. 1986)
- Diehl v. Kowalski (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)
- Evergreen Recycle, L.L.C. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)
- Midwest Asphalt Coating, Inc. v. Chelsea Plaza Homes, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)
- National Union Fire Insurance v. Federal Deposit Insurance (Kan. 1998)
- Phico Insurance Company v. Providers Insurance Company (10th Cir. 1989)
- Container Supply Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (District Court, D. Kansas 1989)
- Rosson v. Cutshall (Kan. Ct. App. 1986)
- Farmco, Inc. v. Explosive Specialists, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Yost (Kan. 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an action brought by certain named beneficiaries to recover benefits under a group life and health insurance policy. After extensive discovery, the district court sustained the motion of the plaintiffs for summary judgment and awarded plaintiffs the full amount of the benefits under the policy plus attorney fees. The defendant, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed in a unanimous opinion by Frederick Woleslagel, district judge retired, who was assigned to the Court of Appeals panel. The comprehensive and well-written opinion by Judge Woleslagel may be found in Estate of Bingham v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 72, 638 P.2d 352 (1981). The Supreme Court granted Nationwide’s petition for review.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals sets forth the undisputed facts, the issues presented in the case, and the controlling Kansas law. After consideration of the entire record and the briefs of counsel, we have concluded that the case was correctly determined by the Court of Appeals and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the district court should be affirmed by this court. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals except for that portion of that opinion remanding the *390 case to the district court to determine and allow an additional attorney fee for the plaintiffs on the appeal. The allowance of an attorney fee on appeal is a matter for determination by the appellate court on motion of a party to the appeal.
The judgment of the district court and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court are affirmed as modified.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.