102.29(6m)(b)2.2. Any leased employee of the employee leasing company, unless the employee who has the right to make a claim for compensation would have a right under s. 102.03 (2) to bring an action against the leased employee if the employee and the leased employee were coemployees.

102.29(7)(7) No employee who is loaned by his or her employer to another employer and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who accepted the loaned employee’s services.

102.29(8)(8) No student of a public school, a private school, or an institution of higher education who is named under s. 102.077 as an employee of the school district, private school, or institution of higher education for purposes of this chapter and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer that provided the work training or work experience from which the claim arose.

102.29(8m)(8m) No participant in a community service job under s. 49.147 (4) or a transitional placement under s. 49.147 (5) who, under s. 49.147 (4) (c) or (5) (c), is provided worker’s compensation coverage by a Wisconsin works agency, as defined under s. 49.001 (9), and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the community service job or transitional placement from which the claim arose.

102.29(8r)(8r) No participant in a food stamp employment and training program under s. 49.79 (9) who, under s. 49.79 (9) (a) 5., is provided worker’s compensation coverage by the department of health services or by a Wisconsin Works agency, as defined in s. 49.001 (9), or other provider under contract with the department of health services or a county department under s. 46.215, 46.22, or 46.23 or tribal governing body to administer the food stamp employment and training program and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the employment and training from which the claim arose.

102.29(9)(9) No participant in a work experience component of a job opportunities and basic skills program who, under s. 49.193 (6) (a), 1997 stats., was considered to be an employee of the agency administering that program, or who, under s. 49.193 (6) (a), 1997 stats., was provided worker’s compensation coverage by the person administering the work experience component, and who makes a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the work experience from which the claim arose. This subsection does not apply to injuries occurring after February 28, 1998.

102.29(10)(10) A practitioner who, under s. 257.03, is considered an employee of the state for purposes of worker’s compensation coverage while providing services on behalf of a health care facility, the department of health services, or a local health department during a state of emergency and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may not make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the health care facility, department, or local health department that accepted those services.

102.29(11)(11) No security officer employed by the department of military affairs who is deputed under s. 59.26 (4m), who remains an employee of the state for purposes of worker’s compensation coverage while conducting routine external security checks around military installations in this state, and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or bring an action in tort against the county in which the security officer is conducting routine external security checks or against the sheriff or undersheriff who deputed the security officer.

102.29(12)(12) No individual who is an employee of an entity described in s. 102.07 (20) for purposes of this chapter and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the person described in s. 102.07 (20) who received the services from which the claim arose.

102.29 AnnotationIn a third-party action [now under this section], safe place liability [now under s. 101.11] cannot be imposed on officers or employees of the employer. Their liability must be based on common law negligence. Pitrowski v. Taylor, 55 Wis. 2d 615, 201 N.W.2d 52 (1972).

102.29 AnnotationMembers of a partnership are employers of the employees of the partnership. An employee cannot bring a third-party action against a member of the employing partnership. Candler v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 57 Wis. 2d 85, 203 N.W.2d 659 (1973).

102.29 AnnotationSub. (1) provides attorney fees are to be allowed as “costs of collection” and, unless otherwise agreed upon, are to be divided between the attorneys for both the employee and the compensation carrier pursuant to court direction. Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 62 Wis. 2d 759, 216 N.W.2d 193 (1974).

102.29 AnnotationThe words “action commenced by the injured employee” in sub. (5) also encompass the bringing of wrongful death and survival actions. Ortman v. Jensen & Johnson, Inc., 66 Wis. 2d 508, 225 N.W.2d 635 (1975).

102.29 AnnotationThe six-year limitation on third-party actions for wrongful death provided in sub. (5) does not deny third-party defendants equal protection although other wrongful death defendants are subject to the s. 893.205 (2) three-year limitation. Ortman v. Jenson & Johnson, Inc., 66 Wis. 2d 508, 225 N.W.2d 635 (1975).

102.29 AnnotationThe extra-hazardous activity exception did not apply to an employee of a general contractor who was injured while doing routine work in a nuclear power plant. Snider v. Northern States Power Co., 81 Wis. 2d 224, 260 N.W.2d 260 (1977).

102.29 AnnotationA “business pursuit” exclusion in a defendant coemployee’s homeowner’s policy did not offend public policy. Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis. 2d 13, 271 N.W.2d 603 (1978).

102.29 AnnotationThat sub. (2) denies third-party tort-feasors the right to a contribution action against a negligent employer who was substantially more at fault does not render the statute unconstitutional. Mulder v. Acme-Cleveland Corp., 95 Wis. 2d 173, 290 N.W.2d 276 (1980).

102.29 AnnotationThe right to share in a jury award was not dependent on participation in the prosecution of the underlying action. Guyette v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 102 Wis. 2d 496, 307 N.W.2d 311 (Ct. App. 1981).

102.29 AnnotationThe provision by an employer of alleged negligent medical care to an employee injured on the job by persons employed for that purpose did not subject the employer to tort liability for malpractice. Jenkins v. Sabourin, 104 Wis. 2d 309, 311 N.W.2d 600 (1981).

102.29 AnnotationAn award for loss of consortium is not subject to the distribution formula under sub. (1). DeMeulenaere v. Transport Insurance Co., 116 Wis. 2d 322, 342 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1983).

102.29 AnnotationThe trial court exceeded its authority under sub. (1) by applying an alternative allocation formula without the consent of all the parties. An award for pain and suffering is subject to allocation under sub. (1), but an award to a spouse for loss of consortium prior to the employee’s death is not. Kottka v. PPG Industries, Inc., 130 Wis. 2d 499, 388 N.W.2d 160 (1986).

102.29 AnnotationThe distribution scheme under sub. (1) renders common-law subrogation principles inapplicable. Martinez v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 132 Wis. 2d 11, 390 N.W.2d 72 (Ct. App. 1986).

102.29 AnnotationWhen there are competing claims for insufficient insurance proceeds and one claim is subject to sub. (1) allocation, while the other is not, the formula set forth in this case is to be followed. Brewer v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 142 Wis. 2d 864, 418 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1987).

102.29 AnnotationThe “dual persona” doctrine is adopted, replacing the “dual capacity” doctrine. A third party may recover from an employer only when the employer has operated in a distinct persona as to the employee. Henning v. General Motors Assembly Division, 143 Wis. 2d 1, 419 N.W.2d 551 (1988).

102.29 AnnotationUnless a person is affirmatively negligent with respect to the claimant, the person who employs an independent contractor may not be held vicariously liable to the independent contractor’s employees. Wagner v. Continental Casualty Co., 143 Wis. 2d 379, 421 N.W.2d 835 (1988).

102.29 AnnotationThe legal distinction between a corporation/employer and a partnership/landlord that leased the factory to the corporation, although both entities were composed of the same individuals, eliminated the partners’ immunity as individuals under the exclusivity doctrine for negligence in maintaining the leased premises. Couillard v. Van Ess, 152 Wis. 2d 62, 447 N.W.2d 391 (Ct. App. 1989).