893.02 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.39 of the statutes renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
893.02 AnnotationIn a products liability action, a new cause of action for punitive damages brought after the statute of limitations expired related back to the date of filing the original pleading. Wussow v. Commercial Mechanisms, Inc., 97 Wis. 2d 136, 293 N.W.2d 897 (1980). 893.02 AnnotationAn action against an unnamed defendant under s. 807.12 that was filed on the last day of a limitation period, in which amended process naming the defendant was served within 60 days after filing, was not time barred. The relation back requirements of s. 802.09 (3) were inapplicable. Lak v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 100 Wis. 2d 641, 302 N.W.2d 483 (1981). 893.02 AnnotationService of process did not commence an action when the plaintiff failed to file the summons and complaint. The defendant’s answer did not waive the statute of limitations defense or estop the defendant from raising it after the limitation period expired. Hester v. Williams, 117 Wis. 2d 634, 345 N.W.2d 426 (1984). 893.02 AnnotationA fictitiously designated defendant’s right to extinction of an action does not effectively vest until 60 days after the statute of limitations runs. Lavine v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 140 Wis. 2d 434, 410 N.W.2d 623 (Ct. App. 1987). 893.02 AnnotationTimely Service Abroad in Diversity Suits. La Fave. Wis. Law. Nov. 2000.
893.03893.03 Presenting claims. The presentation of any claim, in cases where by law such presentment is required, to the circuit court shall be deemed the commencement of an action within the meaning of any law limiting the time for the commencement of an action thereon. 893.03 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 449 s. 497; 1979 c. 323. 893.03 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.41 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
893.03 AnnotationA statute of limitations is not tolled by filing an action in a court completely lacking jurisdiction and later refiling in the proper court after the statute has run. Schafer v. Wegner, 78 Wis. 2d 127, 254 N.W.2d 193 (1977). 893.04893.04 Computation of period within which action may be commenced. Unless otherwise specifically prescribed by law, a period of limitation within which an action may be commenced is computed from the time that the cause of action accrues until the action is commenced. 893.04 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.04 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: Previous section 893.48 is repealed and sections 893.04 and 893.14 created for the purpose of clarity. See Denzer v. Rouse, 48 Wis. 2d 528, 180 N.W.2d 521 (1970) for a discussion of when a cause of action accrues, citing Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc. 42 Wis. 2d 750, 168 N.W.2d 177 (1969). [Bill 326-A] 893.04 AnnotationIn attorney malpractice actions, as in medical malpractice cases, when the date of the negligence and the date of injury are the same, the statute of limitations runs from that date, for that is the time when the cause of action accrues. Denzer v. Rouse, 48 Wis. 2d 528, 180 N.W.2d 521 (1970). 893.04 AnnotationThe loss of the right to a patent is the loss of the right to exclude others, and, therefore, the injury occurred on the date that the right to the patent was lost. Boehm v. Wheeler, 65 Wis. 2d 668, 223 N.W.2d 536 (1974). 893.04 AnnotationBecause s. 67.11 requires moneys in a sinking fund to remain inviolate until the bonds are retired, a cause of action regarding the fund could only accrue at retirement. Joint School District No. 1 v. City of Chilton, 78 Wis. 2d 52, 253 N.W.2d 879 (1977). 893.04 AnnotationA tort claim accrues when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. This “discovery rule” applies to all tort actions other than those governed by a statutory discovery rule. Hansen v. A.H. Robins Co., 113 Wis. 2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983). 893.04 AnnotationWhen the plaintiff’s early subjective lay person’s belief that a furnace caused the injury was contradicted by examining physicians, the cause of action against the furnace company did not accrue until the plaintiff’s suspicion was confirmed by later medical diagnosis. Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 130 Wis. 2d 397, 388 N.W.2d 140 (1986). 893.04 AnnotationClaimed ignorance of, and a blatant failure to follow, applicable regulations cannot be construed as reasonable diligence in discovering an injury when following the rules would have resulted in earlier discovery. Stroh Die Casting Co. v. Monsanto Co., 177 Wis. 2d 91, 502 N.W.2d 132 (Ct. App. 1993). 893.04 AnnotationThe day upon which a cause of action accrues is not included in computing the period of limitation. Pufahl v. Williams, 179 Wis. 2d 104, 506 N.W.2d 747 (1993). 893.04 AnnotationThe discovery rule does not allow a plaintiff to delay the statute of limitations until the extent of the injury is known. The statute begins to run when the plaintiff has sufficient evidence that a wrong has been committed by an identified person. Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995). 893.04 AnnotationA plaintiff can rely on the discovery rule only if the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence. Jacobs v. Nor-Lake, Inc., 217 Wis. 2d 625, 579 N.W.2d 254 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1740. 893.04 AnnotationThe discovery rule applies to statutes of limitations that limit the time to sue from the time when the action “accrues,” being the time of discovery. The discovery rule does not apply to a statute of repose, a statute that specifies the time of accrual and limits the time suit can be brought from that specified date. Tomczak v. Bailey, 218 Wis. 2d 245, 578 N.W.2d 166 (1998), 95-2733. 893.04 AnnotationKnowing that a particular product caused an injury, an injured party cannot extend the accrual date for a cause of action against the product’s manufacturer due to the subsequent discovery of possible connections between that product and another manufacturer’s product in causing the injury. Baldwin v. Badger Mining Corp., 2003 WI App 95, 264 Wis. 2d 301, 663 N.W.2d 382, 02-1197. 893.04 AnnotationThe discovery rule permits the accrual of both survival claims and wrongful death claims to occur after the date of the decedent’s death. In the absence of a legislatively created rule to the contrary, these claims accrue when there is a claim capable of present enforcement, a suable party against whom it may be enforced, and a party who has a present right to enforce it. Christ v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2015 WI 58, 362 Wis. 2d 668, 866 N.W.2d 602, 12-1493. 893.04 AnnotationDiscovery occurs when the plaintiff has information that would constitute the basis for an objective belief as to the plaintiff’s injury and its cause. The degree of certainty that constitutes sufficient knowledge is variable, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the plaintiff. With corporate players, a different quantum of expertise and knowledge is in play. Wisconsin courts have recognized that ignorance is a less compelling excuse for corporate enterprises in the context of the discovery rule. KDC Foods, Inc. v. Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., 763 F.3d 743 (2014). 893.04 AnnotationComputing Time in Tort Statutes of Limitation. Ghiardi. 64 MLR 575 (1981).
893.04 AnnotationComputing Time in Statutes of Limitation. Ghiardi. Wis. Law. Mar. 1993.
893.05893.05 Relation of statute of limitations to right and remedy. When the period within which an action may be commenced on a Wisconsin cause of action has expired, the right is extinguished as well as the remedy. 893.05 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.05 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This new section is a codification of Wisconsin case law. See Maryland Casualty Company v. Beleznay, 245 Wis. 390, 14 N.W.2d 177 (1944), in which it is stated at page 393: “In Wisconsin the running of the statute of limitations absolutely extinguishes the cause of action for in Wisconsin limitations are not treated as statutes of repose. The limitation of actions is a right as well as a remedy, extinguishing the right on one side and creating a right on the other, which is as of high dignity as regards judicial remedies as any other right and it is a right which enjoys constitutional protection”. [Bill 326-A] 893.05 AnnotationThe expiration of the limitations period extinguishes the cause of action of the potential plaintiff and it also creates a right enjoyed by the would-be defendant to insist on that statutory bar. A defendant, having acquired a right to assert the statute of limitations bar by operation of law, would suffer plain legal prejudice if a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal were granted. Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 477 F.3d 924 (2007). 893.07893.07 Application of foreign statutes of limitation. 893.07(1)(1) If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies has expired, no action may be maintained in this state. 893.07(2)(2) If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies to that action has not expired, but the applicable Wisconsin period of limitation has expired, no action may be maintained in this state. 893.07 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.07 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: Sub. (1) applies the provision of s. 893.05 that the running of a statute of limitations extinguishes the right as well as the remedy to a foreign cause of action on which an action is attempted to be brought in Wisconsin in a situation where the foreign period has expired. Sub. (1) changes the law of prior s. 893.205 (1), which provided that a resident of Wisconsin could sue in this state on a foreign cause of action to recover damages for injury to the person even if the foreign period of limitation had expired.
893.07 NoteSub. (2) applies the Wisconsin statute of limitations to a foreign cause of action if the Wisconsin period is shorter than the foreign period and the Wisconsin period has run. [Bill 326-A]
893.07 AnnotationThe borrowing statute was properly applied to an injury received outside of this state. A conflict of laws analysis was not appropriate. Guertin v. Harbour Assurance Co. of Bermuda, 141 Wis. 2d 622, 415 N.W.2d 831 (1987). 893.07 AnnotationSection 893.16 (1) is effective to toll the running of the statute of limitations, even when under this section the plaintiff would be barred from bringing suit under applicable foreign law. Scott v. First State Insurance Co., 155 Wis. 2d 608, 456 N.W.2d 152 (1990). 893.07 AnnotationThis section is applicable to actions on contracts. A claim is foreign when the final significant event giving rise to a suable event, the alleged breach, occurs outside the state. Abraham v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 217 Wis. 2d 294, 576 N.W.2d 46 (1998), 95-2918. 893.07 AnnotationSub. (1) refers to “the period of limitation,” as defined by the foreign jurisdiction, that governs the case in the foreign state. Application of this rule includes a limitation period that operates as a statute of repose. Wenke v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103, 274 Wis. 2d 220, 682 N.W.2d 405, 01-2649. 893.07 AnnotationIn medical malpractice cases involving a negligent misdiagnosis that results in a latent, though continuous, injury, whether the action is “foreign” for purposes of Wisconsin’s borrowing statute is determined by whether the plaintiff’s first injury occurred outside of Wisconsin. When the plaintiff’s place of first injury is unknowable but could have occurred within or outside of this state, the borrowing statute does not apply. Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Insurance Co., 2019 WI 65, 387 Wis. 2d 278, 929 N.W.2d 113, 17-0739. 893.07 AnnotationA cause of action is foreign for purposes of the borrowing statute if the plaintiff’s injury occurred outside of this state. An injury occurs where it is felt rather than where it originates. To the extent the physician in this case violated the plaintiff’s right to informed consent, that injury was felt in Michigan because the plaintiff was in Michigan when the physician allegedly informed the plaintiff that his growth was not malignant and needed no further treatment. Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Insurance Co., 2019 WI 65, 387 Wis. 2d 278, 929 N.W.2d 113, 17-0739. 893.07 AnnotationA tort action based on an injury received outside of this state was “foreign.” Johnson v. Deltadynamics, Inc., 813 F.2d 944 (1987). 893.07 AnnotationUnder this section, a foreign jurisdiction’s period of limitations is borrowed, but not its period of repose. Beard v. J.I. Case Co., 823 F.2d 1095 (1987). 893.07 AnnotationIt is a quirk of libel law that a plaintiff is generally considered to be injured wherever the defamatory writing is published. Therefore, a multistate defamation case in which at least some injury occurs within the borders of this state does not constitute a foreign cause of action for purposes of the borrowing statute. Faigin v. Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 98 F.3d 268 (1996). 893.07 AnnotationThis section directs courts to apply the shortest limitation period possible to foreign causes of action, whether the applicable statute is a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. Merner v. Deere & Co., 176 F. Supp. 2d 882 (2001). 893.07 AnnotationWisconsin’s Borrowing Statute: Did We Shortchange Ourselves? Endreson. 70 MLR 120 (1986).
893.07 AnnotationInterpreting Wisconsin’s Borrowing Statute. Wiegand. Wis. Law. May 2001.
LIMITATIONS TOLLED OR EXTENDED
893.10893.10 Actions, time for commencing. The period within which an action may be commenced shall not be considered to have expired when the court before which the action is pending is satisfied that the person originally served knowingly gave false information to the officer with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty in the service of any summons or civil process. If the court so finds, the period of limitation is extended for one year. 893.10 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.10 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.14 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893. [Bill 326-A]
893.10 AnnotationMany Wisconsin statutes of limitations use commencement of “an action” to set the time by which a claimant must act to timely preserve a claim. A party can possess a claim without it commencing an action, but a party cannot properly commence an action without it asserting at least one valid claim. Because a claim provides the basis for an action, a claim necessarily exists before an action is brought, and what matters for limitations purposes is whether an action is timely commenced asserting that claim. The legislative choice to refer to an “action” reflects these basic principles. Town of Burnside v. City of Independence, 2016 WI App 94, 372 Wis. 2d 802, 889 N.W.2d 186, 16-0034. 893.11893.11 Extension of time if no person to sue. The fact that there is no person in existence who is authorized to bring an action on a cause of action at the time it accrues shall not extend the time within which, according to this chapter, an action may be commenced upon the cause of action to more than double the period otherwise prescribed by law. 893.11 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.11 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.50 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893 and revised for the purpose of textual clarity only. [Bill 326-A]
893.12893.12 Advance payment of damages; limitation extended. The period fixed for the limitation for the commencement of actions, if a payment is made as described in s. 885.285 (1), shall be either the period of time remaining under the original statute of limitations or 3 years from the date of the last payment made under s. 885.285 (1), whichever is greater. 893.12 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.12 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is created to place the statute extending statute of limitations when there has been a settlement and advance payment of claim for damages into the subchapter of chapter 893 on extension of statute of limitations. The provisions of prior s. 885.285 (4) are contained without change in newly created s. 893.12. [Bill 326-A]
893.12 AnnotationAny payment made in advance or settlement of either personal injury or property damage claims, when the plaintiff has both, extends the limitation for a personal injury claim, if it is made within the three-year limit period of s. 893.54 (1). Abraham v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co., 115 Wis. 2d 678, 341 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1983). 893.12 AnnotationThis section does not apply to foreign causes of action. Section 893.07 (1) prevents this section from extending foreign statutes of limitations. Thimm v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America, 148 Wis. 2d 332, 434 N.W.2d 842 (Ct. App. 1988). 893.12 AnnotationThe tolling provision applies only to the party that received a settlement or advance payment under s. 885.285. It does not apply to a stranger to the settlement. Riley v. Doe, 152 Wis. 2d 766, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Ct. App. 1989). 893.12 AnnotationFor a period of limitations to be extended under this section as the result of a “payment” by check, the check must be accepted and negotiated. Parr v. Milwaukee Building & Construction Trades, 177 Wis. 2d 140, 501 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1993). 893.12 AnnotationTo be a payment under s. 885.285 that will toll or extend the statute of limitations, a payment must be related to fault or liability. Gurney v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 188 Wis. 2d 68, 523 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1994). 893.12 AnnotationThe waiver by the defendant medical provider in a medical malpractice action of the copayment portion of the amount due for the plaintiff’s medical treatment did not constitute a payment under this section or s. 885.285. Young v. Aurora Medical Center of Washington County, Inc., 2004 WI App 71, 272 Wis. 2d 300, 679 N.W.2d 549, 03-0224. 893.13893.13 Tolling of statutes of limitation. 893.13(1)(1) In this section and ss. 893.14 and 893.15 “final disposition” means the end of the period in which an appeal may be taken from a final order or judgment of the trial court, the end of the period within which an order for rehearing can be made in the highest appellate court to which an appeal is taken, or the final order or judgment of the court to which remand from an appellate court is made, whichever is latest. 893.13(2)(2) A law limiting the time for commencement of an action is tolled by the commencement of the action to enforce the cause of action to which the period of limitation applies. The law limiting the time for commencement of the action is tolled for the period from the commencement of the action until the final disposition of the action. 893.13(3)(3) If a period of limitation is tolled under sub. (2) by the commencement of an action and the time remaining after final disposition in which an action may be commenced is less than 30 days, the period within which the action may be commenced is extended to 30 days from the date of final disposition. 893.13 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.13 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: Section 893.35 is repealed and this section created to clarify the ending of the tolled period of a statute of limitations in the various situations which can arise when an appeal is taken.
893.13 NoteSub. (3) would apply when, for example, an action was commenced when the period of limitation has only 5 days left to run. The running of the period of limitation is tolled for the period from commencement of the action until the day of its final disposition, such as dismissal of the action based on the pleadings. A 30-day period is then provided (rather than the 5 days left on the original period of limitation) in order to provide a reasonable time for a party to consider whether to recommence the action. [Bill 326-A]
893.13 AnnotationThis section does not toll the statute to allow an independent claim by an insurer. It simply insures that the joinder of constituent parts of a cause of action during the pendency of the action is not frustrated by the application of the appropriate statute of limitations. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Owen, 191 Wis. 2d 744, 530 N.W.2d 51 (Ct. App. 1995). 893.13 AnnotationThe filing of an action, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, tolls the statute of limitations under sub. (2) for the period specified in sub. (1) for cases in which no appeal is taken. Johnson v. County of Crawford, 195 Wis. 2d 374, 536 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0144. 893.13 AnnotationA suit filed prior to the expiration of the 120-day period for a denial of claim under s. 893.80 is not truly commenced and does not toll the statute of limitations when filed. Colby v. Columbia County, 202 Wis. 2d 342, 550 N.W.2d 124 (1996), 93-3348. 893.13 AnnotationTo interpret this statute to mean that a plaintiff’s timely lawsuit tolled the statute of limitations as to all other possible victims would abrogate the statute of limitations. Such an interpretation would lead to absurd results and render meaningless the statute of limitations in multiple-victim cases. Barnes v. WISCO Hotel Group, 2009 WI App 72, 318 Wis. 2d 537, 767 N.W.2d 352, 08-1884. 893.13 AnnotationAetna, 191 Wis. 2d 744 (1995), does not establish that whenever a person intervenes in a pending lawsuit, asserting claims identical to, although not constituent of, those of the original parties, the intervenor receives the benefit of tolling under sub. (2). Only a person having one of the three “constituent parts” of an original, timely cause of action under s. 803.03 (2) (a), i.e., subrogation, derivation, or assignment, may successfully intervene in a pending action without regard to the statute of limitations. Town of Burnside v. City of Independence, 2016 WI App 94, 372 Wis. 2d 802, 889 N.W.2d 186, 16-0034. 893.135893.135 Tolling of statute of limitations for marital property agreements. Any statute of limitations applicable to an action to enforce a marital property agreement under ch. 766 is tolled as provided under s. 766.58 (13). 893.135 HistoryHistory: 1985 a. 37; 1987 a. 393. 893.137893.137 Tolling of statute of limitations for certain time-share actions. Any statute of limitations affecting the right of an association organized under s. 707.30 (2) or a time-share owner, as defined in s. 707.02 (31), against a developer, as defined in s. 707.02 (11), is tolled as provided in s. 707.34 (1) (bm). 893.137 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 399. 893.14893.14 Limitation on use of a right of action as a defense or counterclaim. Unless otherwise specifically prescribed by law, the period within which a cause of action may be used as a defense or counterclaim is computed from the time of the accrual of the cause of action until the time that the plaintiff commences the action in which the defense or counterclaim is made. A law limiting the time for commencement of an action is tolled by the assertion of the defense or the commencement of the counterclaim until final disposition of the defense or counterclaim. If a period of limitation is tolled under this section and the time remaining after final disposition in which an action may be commenced is less than 30 days, the period within which the action may be commenced is extended to 30 days from the date of final disposition. 893.14 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 323. 893.14 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is based upon previous ss. 893.48 and 893.49. The section provides, however, that a statute of limitations is tolled only from the assertion of the defense or counterclaim until the final disposition of the defense or counterclaim. Under previous s. 893.49 a statute of limitations was tolled from the commencement of the action in which the defense or counterclaim was asserted until the termination of the action. [Bill 326-A]
