## Facts

- Yvonne Joanne Simpson was driving in Kansas City, Kansas, when an unidentified vehicle forced her off the road at an intersection.
- Simpson’s vehicle left the roadway and struck a utility pole, causing personal injuries.
- The unidentified vehicle immediately left the scene and was never identified.
- There was no physical contact between Simpson’s vehicle and the unidentified vehicle.
- Simpson sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under her Farmers policy.
- The UM endorsement treated a “hit and run automobile” as uninsured but defined it to require bodily injury arising out of physical contact with the insured or the insured’s occupied vehicle.
- Farmers denied coverage based on the policy’s physical-contact condition.

## Issues

1. Whether a UM policy’s “physical contact” requirement for hit-and-run coverage is void as contrary to the public policy and legislative intent of K.S.A. 40-284.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Farmers.
- The court held the policy’s physical-contact requirement in the hit-and-run definition was void and unenforceable because it conflicted with K.S.A. 40-284.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with recognizing UM coverage despite the lack of contact.

## Legal Principles

- K.S.A. 40-284 embodies a remedial public policy to protect insured persons injured by uninsured, financially irresponsible, or unidentified motorists.
- UM coverage mandated by statute cannot be reduced by contract terms that materially restrict coverage beyond statutory limits.
- A policy term requiring physical contact in hit-and-run claims improperly narrows statutory protection when the statute focuses on whether the unidentified motorist’s conduct caused the injury.
- Fraud concerns do not justify a categorical contractual restriction that bars otherwise provable causation-based claims; insurers may rely on ordinary proof, investigation, and credibility challenges.
- Insurance policy limitations conflicting with statutory UM requirements are invalid, and coverage provisions are construed in favor of the insured when statutory policy is implicated.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the UM endorsement’s hit-and-run physical-contact condition because it impermissibly limited coverage required by K.S.A. 40-284, allowing recovery where an unidentified driver caused injury without colliding with the insured’s vehicle.


Simpson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 225 Kan. 508, 592 P.2d 445 (Kan. 1979)