Kansas House Bill HB2351

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25

Caption

Amending the uniform arbitration act of 2000 to make certain agreements to appraise or arbitrate in contracts of insurance invalid and creating exceptions therefor.

Summary

HB2351 amends Kansas arbitration law to limit the enforceability of appraisal and arbitration clauses in contracts of insurance. Under the bill, agreements in insurance contracts entered into or renewed after July 1, 2025, that require appraisal or arbitration of disputes would generally be invalid and unenforceable, with the agreement instead treated as an offer by the insurer to enter into binding or nonbinding arbitration. The bill preserves an exception for contracts between insurance companies, including reinsurance contracts. The measure also keeps the existing framework in K.S.A. 5-428 for determining who decides threshold arbitration issues: courts decide whether an arbitration agreement exists or whether a dispute falls within it, while arbitrators decide certain conditions precedent and enforceability questions when a valid agreement exists. The bill would repeal and replace the current statute to carve out insurance contracts from the general rule favoring arbitration.

Impact

HB2351 would change Kansas law by narrowing the application of the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 in the insurance context. It would make appraisal and arbitration provisions in most insurance policies unenforceable for policies issued or renewed after the effective date, while leaving inter-insurer and reinsurance agreements untouched. The practical effect would be to shift more insurance disputes into court rather than private appraisal or arbitration, affecting insurers, policyholders, and potentially claims handling and dispute resolution practices across the state.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is a targeted policy change requested on behalf of the Kansas Bar Association, which indicates professional support for revisiting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative debate or opposition in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to be a technical but meaningful consumer- and litigation-focused reform rather than a broadly controversial measure in the available record.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether insurance disputes should be resolved through private appraisal or arbitration clauses versus the courts. Supporters would view the bill as protecting insureds from mandatory dispute-resolution provisions in insurance policies, while opponents may argue that it restricts contractual freedom and could increase litigation costs and delay claims resolution. The exception for contracts between insurance companies and reinsurance contracts suggests the bill is aimed specifically at insurer-policyholder relationships, which may also be a focal point in any debate.