Kansas Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt announced the Ka
nsas Department of Insurance recovered $56.7 million for Kansans in 2025
Funds considered “recovered” are calculated when Department staff assists individuals in need of support during their in
surance claims process. If a dispute arises between a policyholder and an insurance company, regardless of the type of insuranc
e, the Kansas Department of Insurance investigates the complaint.
Department staff work with the consumer and the company to ensure the insurance policy is followed and benefits are paid accordingly.
KDI received more than 3,000 consumer complaints in 2025, led accident/health (1,263). There were 1,091 auto complaints and 737 home complaints.
In 2025, $29.2 million has been recovered for Kansans though the Consumer Assistance Division.
In addition, staff have assisted Kansans in locating life insurance policies and annuity contracts of a deceased family member or clo
se relationship through the Life Insurance Policy Locator (LIPL), a tool provided to states through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
In 2025, $27.5 million has been recovered for Kansans through the LIPL. 2025 recoveries are not final as the LIPL numbers are still being totaled, and cases are still being closed.
The plaintiffs were five former employees of JES Construction. Four of the plaintiffs would go to prospective customers’ homes to sell construction services. One plaintif
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
f was responsible for repairing installations and selling additional goods and ser
ices. Four of the workers were paid exclusively on a commission basis. One was paid commissions plus other compensation.
The commissions were paid as 10% of the gross price of the sales they made. JES paid half of the commission once
the contract’s three-day rescission period had expired and the contract had become final. JES paid the remainder once the job was complete and the customer had made a final payment.
The plaintiff employees often experienced significant delays in receiving
payment for their full commission. The delays could be caused by the engineering and permitting phases of the contract. Four of the five plaintiffs later sig
ned an agreement with JES under which they agreed that the commissions would be paid up to 14 days after the employees no lo
nger worked for JES. No further commissions would be paid after 14 days.
The plaintiffs alleged that JES refused to pay commissions after they left the company and that, when they left the company, they were owed thousands of dollars in earned but unpaid commissions.