Skip to main content
· 11/20/1992

Miner v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.

Citations

  • 841 P.2d 1093
  • 17 Kan. App. 2d 598
  • 1992 Kan. App. LEXIS 587

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that “[i]t [is] not a function of the trial court to create an ambiguity requiring an interpretation favorable to the insured when no ambiguity exist[s]”
  • noting that “[i]t [is] not a function of the trial court to create an ambiguity requiring an interpretation favorable to the insured when no ambiguity exist[s]”
  • noting that “[i]t [is] not a function of the trial court to create an ambiguity requiring an interpretation favorable to the insured when no ambiguity exist[s]”
  • noting that “[i]t [is] not a function of the trial court to create an ambiguity requhv ing an interpretation favorable to the insured when no ambiguity existfs]”
  • recognizing this duty even where a party cannot himself read
  • recognizing this duty even where a party cannot himself read

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gernon, Davis, Wahl

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.