Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513

In a retaliatory discharge action, acts before the two-year limitations period may support recovery if they are part of a continuing pattern of discrimination.

Rebarchek v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator & Mercantile Ass'n · filed 2000-11-03(a)(4)

Our Supreme Court has recognized that, in the context of discriminatory acts covered by the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., events predating the period of hmitations may provide a basis for recovery because they were part of a continuing pattern of discrimination. ... The same analysis applies with equal force to a common-law action for retaliatory discharge for fifing a workers compensation claim.

Section 60-513(b)’s general 10-year repose period does not control over the specific product liability repose provisions in section 60-3303(b).

Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc. · filed 1993-01-13(b)

We find the court’s reasoning in Harding instructive and conclude 60-513(b) does not control over 60-3303(b).

Section 60-513(b)'s ten-year repose period does not apply to products liability actions covered by K.S.A. 60-3303(b).

Speer v. Wheelabrator Corp. · filed 1993-06-21(b)

Because we have determined, based on the Harding and Baumann decisions, that K.S.A. 60—513(b) is not applicable to those actions brought pursuant to the Kansas Products Liability Act enumerated in K.S.A. 60-3303(b), defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on the applicability of K.S.A. 60—513(b) are denied.

Section 60-513(b)’s ten-year repose period for a land-subsidence trespass runs from the subsidence, which is the act giving rise to the claim.

Nida v. American Rock Crusher Co. · filed 1993-06-16(b)

Here, the “act giving rise to the cause of action” was the subsidence of the surface and not the mining operations.

Section 60-513(b)’s ten-year statute of repose does not apply to products liability claims governed by § 60-3303(b).

Strunk v. Lear Siegler, Inc. · filed 1994-02-18(b)

Having given thorough consideration to defendants’ arguments to the contrary, the court finds that our holding in Speer and the holding of the Kansas Court of Appeals in Baumann, that K.S.A. 60 — 3303(b) controls over K.S.A. 60 — 513(b) in a products liability action, remain authoritative and correctly decided. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to amend their answers to add K.S.A. 60 — 513(b) as an affirmative defense are denied on the basis of futility.

Section 60-513(b)’s accrual rule applies only to the causes of action listed in subsection (a).

Newland v. First National Bank in Goodland · filed 1996-04-19(b)

By its terms, the accrual rule in section 513(b) applies only to the specific causes of action listed in section 513(a).

Section 60-513(2) sets a two-year limitations period for conversion actions; the court applied that period by analogy to a 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim.

Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Bowers · filed 1998-12-18(2)

The court presumes defendants so contend because the statute of limitations period governing conversion actions in Kansas is two years, and plaintiffs claim was filed within that limitations, period. K.S.A. § 60-513(2). The court holds that if squarely faced with the issue, Kansas courts would follow the Lott court’s rationale and hold that the statute of limitations governing conversion actions, rather than actions upon statutory penalties, would apply to plaintiffs 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim. Under the Lott rationale, then, plaintiffs claim is not time-barred.

Section 60-513(a)(2) gives conversion claims a two-year limitations period that begins when the injury is reasonably ascertainable.

Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Nash Oil & Gas, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27(a)(2)

The applicable Kansas statute of limitations for plaintiffs claim of conversion is two years. ... Therefore, by 1999 or 2000, plaintiffs claim fully accrued and the statute of limitations began to run because the injury was reasonably ascertainable to plaintiff at that time.

Section 60-513(a)(4) sets a two-year limitation period for tort claims involving flooding caused by construction of a public improvement.

Dougan v. Rossville Drainage District · filed 2000-12-15(a)(4)

The statute of limitations applicable to tort actions involving the flooding of land caused by the construction of a public improvement is K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4). ... That section provides for a 2-year statute of limitations.

Section 60-513(a)(2) and (a)(4) do not govern an action to recover municipal license fees illegally charged and collected.

Bigs v. City of Wichita · filed 2001-06-01(a)(2), (a)(4)

The present case is not about injury to persons or property, as the City insists. It is an action to recover fees illegally charged and collected.

Section 60-513(a)(4) provides a two-year limitations period for wrongful discharge claims, including analogous ERISA § 510 claims.

Myers v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 2002-01-08(a)(4)

Kansas Statutes Annotated § 60- 513(a)(4)14 provides a two-year statute of limitations to a claim of wrongful discharge.

Section 60-513(b)’s ten-year statute of repose is substantive law for choice of law purposes.

Baughn v. Eli Lilly and Co. · filed 2005-02-04(b)

The Court therefore finds that Kansas courts would treat Section 60-513(b) as substantive law for choice of law purposes.

Section 60-513(4) does not govern a claim for pasture damage arising from a written pipeline easement contract when the petition does not allege a tort.

Thompson v. Phillips Pipe Line Co. · filed 1968-03-09(4)

It is further argued that the damages alleged to have been sustained were caused by the construction in December, 1963, and since the plaintiff did not seek arbitration until April, 1966, the claim for relief, being in tort, is barred on its face by the statute of limitations. (K. S. A. 60-513 [4].) ... It was not alleged that Phillips negligently constructed the pipeline, and we find no allegation which suggests the plaintiff’s claim is in tort. ... We are of the opinion the five-year statute of limitations prescribed in 60-511 (1) is applicable, and this conclusion makes it unnecessary to discuss whether an agreement to arbitrate will or will not toll the running of the applicable statute of limitations as contended by the defendant.

Section 60-513’s two-year limit for personal injury actions does not bar a claim brought while the claimant is under 21, even if the claimant married after the injury.

Edmonds v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 1969-01-21(4)

Here the plaintiff instituted her action before she was 21 years of age. The Court holds that her cause of action was not barred by the Statute of Limitations and the motion of defendant, considered as one for summary judgment, must be denied.

Section 60-513(a)(4)’s two-year period does not apply when the claim rests on a liability created by statute and falls under the three-year period in § 60-512(2).

Pecenka v. Alquest · filed 1981-04-17(a)(4)

K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) is a two-year statute of limitations covering “[a]n action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated.” ... Because the statute created the liability, we conclude that the applicable statute of limitations in the instant case is K.S.A. 60-512(2), the three-year statute, and that the trial court erred in holding that the two-year statute of limitations applied.

Section 60-513(a)(4) provides a two-year limitations period for negligence claims, but it does not govern negligent defamation claims, which are subject to the one-year libel period.

McKown v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. · filed 1990-09-07(a)(4)

The statute of limitations governing negligence claims is two years. K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4). ... To the extent that plaintiffs have pleaded or seek to plead a negligent defamation claim, the one year statute of limitations governing libel and slander, and not the two year statute of limitations governing negligence, governs this action.

A comparative implied indemnity claim must be brought within two years after the underlying injury claim accrues.

Reeve v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 1992-04-30(a)(4)

Nevertheless, as best this court can determine, the Kansas Supreme Court has voiced its opinion, although in a less-than-clear tone, that a comparative implied indemnity claim must be made within a two year statute of limitations which begins running when the underlying fault cause of action accrues.

Section 60-513’s two-year limitations defense does not bar a claim under a settlement agreement that waives the defense.

Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1998-06-05

According to State Farm, since no claim was filed against Sharon Auck in the petition, and the 2-year statute of limitations found in K.S.A. 60-513 has expired, any claim for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision is barred. The argument is without merit. ... More importantly, however, this matter is not a tort action but one sounding in contract based on the settlement agreement. ... The statute of limitations affirmative defense has been waived by the settlement agreement.