60-518. New action, when.
If any action be commenced within due time, and the plaintiff fail in such action otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the same shall have expired, the plaintiff, or, if the plaintiff die, and the cause of action survive, his or her representatives may commence a new action within six (6) months after such failure.
But note the difference if you are dealing with the sale of goods under the UCC:
84-2-725. Statute of limitations in contracts for sale.
(3) Where an action commenced
within the time limited by subsection (1) is so terminated as to leave
available a remedy by another action for the same breach such other action
may be commenced after the expiration of the time limited and within six
months after the termination of the first action unless the termination
resulted from voluntary discontinuance or from dismissal for failure or
neglect to prosecute.
On a different note, 61-1703 provides you can save the statute if your service is process is later ruled invalid, if you obtain good service within 90 days thereafter:
61-1703. Commencement of actions; limitation of actions.
(b) If service of process or first publication purports to have been made but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced at the applicable time under subsection (a) if valid service is obtained or first publication is made within 90 days after that adjudication, except that the court may extend that time an additional 30 days upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.
However, if the defendant
was never actually served and obtained no actual notice of the suit, and
the statute subsequently runs, you cannot then later attempt service within
90 days after adjudication of no service and revive the statute.
Grimmett v. Burke, 906 P.2d 156, 21 Kan.App.2d 638 (Kan.App. 1995).
There apparently is a distinction between bad service and no service.