Wisconsin
Wisconsin Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and Exceptions (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 19, 2026). · 28 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Wisconsin allows punitive damages under Wis. Stat. 895.043 when "the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff," and the Wisconsin Supreme Court requires that showing by clear and convincing evidence. Section 895.043(6) generally caps the punitive damages a plaintiff receives at twice the compensatory damages recovered or $200,000, whichever is greater, but the cap does not apply when the defendant's conduct included operating a motor vehicle, off-highway motorcycle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, utility terrain vehicle or boat while under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree that made the defendant incapable of safe operation.
Punitive damages are not available in the wrongful death claim itself, though an estate may recover them with the decedent's own claim. They are also barred against a deceased wrongdoer's personal representative (895.02), in actions against state officers, employees and agents (893.82(6)), in tort actions against local governments under 893.80(3), and, under the Court of Appeals decision in Lund v. Kokemoor (1995), in medical malpractice claims. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.
Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Wisconsin state law on punitive damages in civil cases: Wis. Stat. 895.043 and the other statutes and decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases (see Wisconsin medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Wisconsin wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive, exemplary or multiple damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.
Does Wisconsin allow punitive damages?
Yes. Section 895.043 sets the standard of conduct, the procedure once a prima facie case is made, the cap and its intoxicated-operation exception. It is the general punitive damages statute, but by its own terms it does not reach every award: under 895.043(2), "this section does not apply to awards of double damages or treble damages," or to exemplary damages under a list of specific statutes, including 46.90(9), 51.30(9), 51.61(7), 55.043(9m), 103.96(2), 134.93(5), 146.84(1)(b) and (bm), 153.76, 252.14(4), 252.15(8)(a), 610.70(7)(b), 943.245(2) and (3), and 943.51(2) and (3).
Wisconsin statutes use both terms, "punitive damages" and "exemplary damages," and several of the claim-specific statutes below use the word exemplary.
Tort claims only. In Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank National Ass'n, 2021 WI 8, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that punitive damages are not available as a remedy in a breach of contract action; an award must rest on a finding of tort liability.
What must be proven
Malice or intentional disregard of rights. Section 895.043(3) provides:
"The plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff."
What intentional disregard means. In Wischer v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 2005 WI 26, the Wisconsin Supreme Court restated its holding from Strenke v. Hogner, 2005 WI 25, decided under the statute's former number, 895.85:
"We concluded in Strenke v. Hogner that the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 895.85(3) that the defendant act 'in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff necessitates that the defendant act with a purpose to disregard the plaintiffs rights or be aware that his or her conduct is substantially certain to result in the plaintiffs rights being disregarded.' Accordingly, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 895.85(3) requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted maliciously to the plaintiff or intentionally disregarded the rights of the plaintiff, not that a defendant intended to cause harm or injury to the plaintiff."
So a plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant meant to hurt anyone, but must show malice or intentional disregard: a purpose to disregard the plaintiff's rights, or awareness that the conduct was substantially certain to result in those rights being disregarded.
Negligence is not enough. In Strenke, the Wisconsin Supreme Court told circuit courts "that punitive damages are not recoverable if the wrongdoer's conduct is merely negligent," and that "[o]nly when the conduct is so aggravated that it meets the elevated standard of an 'intentional disregard of rights' should a circuit court send the issue to a jury."
Burden of proof. Section 895.043 does not state a burden of proof. The Wisconsin Supreme Court applies clear and convincing evidence: in Wischer it asked whether a reasonable jury could find "that the plaintiffs had proved by the middle burden of proof, 'clear and convincing evidence,'" that the defendant was aware its conduct was substantially certain to result in the plaintiffs' rights being disregarded.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Wisconsin?
Yes, generally. Section 895.043(6) provides:
"Punitive damages received by the plaintiff may not exceed twice the amount of any compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff or $200,000, whichever is greater."
What "recovered" means. In Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12, decided April 15, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that "the amount of any compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff" in 895.043(6) "includes only amounts that a plaintiff is legally entitled to receive after obtaining a judgment, and excludes amounts that the plaintiff cannot obtain as a matter of law." In that case the other companies alleged to be at fault were not parties, so the cap was twice the compensatory damages for which the one defendant at trial was legally responsible. The court said this interpretation "does not import principles of comparative negligence into the calculation of punitive damages." The decision reversed the Court of Appeals, which had applied the cap differently in the same case (2024 WI App 33).
The intoxicated-operation exception. The cap does not apply in drunk or drugged operation cases that meet the statute's terms:
"This subsection does not apply to a plaintiff seeking punitive damages from a defendant whose actions under sub. (3) included the operation of a vehicle, including a motor vehicle as defined under s. 340.01 (35), an off-highway motorcycle, as defined in s. 23.335 (1) (q), a snowmobile as defined under s. 340.01 (58a), an all-terrain vehicle as defined under s. 340.01 (2g), a utility terrain vehicle as defined under s. 23.33 (1) (ng), and a boat as defined under s. 30.50 (2), while under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree that rendered the defendant incapable of safe operation of the vehicle."
The test is whether the intoxicant rendered the defendant "incapable of safe operation," and the operation must be part of the conduct that meets the 895.043(3) standard. "Intoxicant" has the meaning given in s. 30.50(4e).
Joint and several liability. Under 895.043(5), "the rule of joint and several liability does not apply to punitive damages."
Due-process limits. The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Wisconsin verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them. Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income, even when they arise from a physical injury (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.
Claim-specific limits
The 895.043(6) cap is the general rule. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, each in its own measure:
| Statute | What the statute provides |
|---|---|
| 134.93(5) | A principal that fails to pay a commission due to an independent sales representative owes the commission plus exemplary damages "of not more than 200 percent of the amount of the commissions due" |
| 103.96(2) | For a willful violation, exemplary damages "up to double the amount of back wages found due" |
| 146.84(1)(b) and (bm) | Patient health care records: for violating s. 146.82 or 146.83, any person, including the state or a political subdivision, owes exemplary damages "of not more than $25,000" for a knowing and willful violation and "not more than $1,000" for a negligent one |
| 153.76 | Health care data confidentiality: exemplary damages to the patient "of up to $1,000 for a negligent violation and up to $5,000 for an intentional violation" |
| 255.04(9) | Cancer reporting confidentiality: exemplary damages to the subject of the information "of up to $1,000 for a negligent violation and up to $5,000 for an intentional violation" |
| 252.14(4) | HIV/AIDS-related discrimination: exemplary damages to the patient "of up to $10,000 for an intentional violation," with the court considering an individual health care provider's ability to pay |
| 100.197(3) | Bad-faith patent notifications (demand letters): punitive damages "not to exceed $50,000 for each violation or 3 times the aggregate amount awarded for all violations under subds. 2. and 3., whichever is greater" |
| 948.051(3) | Trafficking of a child: in a civil action for injury or death from a violation of sub. (1) or (2), punitive damages "not to exceed treble the amount of actual damages incurred" |
| 895.446(3)(c) | Property damage or loss caused by listed crimes: exemplary damages "of not more than 3 times the amount awarded under par. (a)" |
| 943.212(2)(a) and (3) | Fraud on a hotel or restaurant keeper, recreational attraction, taxicab operator or gas station: exemplary damages "of not more than 3 times the amount under sub. (1) (a) and (b)," with exemplary damages and attorney fees together not exceeding $300 |
| 943.245(2)(c)1. and (3) | Worthless checks: exemplary damages "of not more than 3 times the amount under pars. (a) and (b)," with exemplary damages and reasonable attorney fees together not exceeding $500 for each violation |
| 940.302(3) | Human trafficking: in a civil action for injury or death, punitive damages "not to exceed treble the amount of actual damages incurred" |
| 943.51(2) to (3m) | Retail theft: exemplary damages of not more than 3 times the amount under sub. (1) (2 times against a minor or the custodial parent), with exemplary damages and attorney fees together not exceeding $500 for each violation ($300 against a minor or the custodial parent) |
| 134.90(4)(b) | Trade secret misappropriation: if the violation is willful and malicious, punitive damages "in an amount not exceeding twice any award under par. (a)" |
| 706.13(1) | Slander of title (filing a lien or other instrument the filer knows or should have known is false, a sham or frivolous): "punitive damages of $1,000 plus any actual damages" |
| 895.038(3)(b) | "Exemplary damages equal to 3 times the cost of the partial-birth abortion" |
| 949.17(3) and 949.37(3) | The state's own civil action against a violator: its damages plus "punitive damages not more than double the amount of damages which the state may have sustained" |
Does Wisconsin take a share of the award?
No general Wisconsin statute does. Section 895.043 contains no provision directing any part of a punitive award to the state or a fund. Sections 949.17(3) and 949.37(3) are different: they give the state its own civil action for punitive damages against a person who violates those sections, rather than a share of a private plaintiff's award.
How the claim is pleaded and tried
No dollar figure in the complaint. Under Wis. Stat. 802.02(1m)(a), "with respect to a tort claim seeking the recovery of money, the demand for judgment may not specify the amount of money the pleader seeks." The official annotation to that subsection notes that a claim for punitive damages on a tort claim is subject to it and that a demand for a specific amount in violation of it is a nullity (Apex Electronics Corp. v. Gee, 217 Wis. 2d 378 (1998)). Under 802.02(1m)(b), this "does not affect any right of a party to specify to the jury or the court the amount of money the party seeks."
Wealth evidence and a special verdict. Section 895.043(4) provides that if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for the allowance of punitive damages, "(a) The plaintiff may introduce evidence of the wealth of a defendant; and (b) The judge shall submit to the jury a special verdict as to punitive damages or, if the case is tried to the court, the judge shall issue a special verdict as to punitive damages."
The circuit court as gatekeeper. Under Strenke, a circuit court sends the punitive damages question to the jury only when the conduct meets the intentional-disregard standard.
Review for excessiveness. In Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc., 2014 WI 21, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied a six-factor test to decide whether a punitive award is excessive: the grievousness of the acts; the degree of malicious intent; whether the award bears a reasonable relationship to the compensatory award; the potential damage that might have been caused by the acts; the ratio of the award to civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct; and the wealth of the wrongdoer. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct is the most important indicium of reasonableness.
Drunk driving and other intoxicated operation
Intoxicated operation matters at two points. First, the standard: in Strenke, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that "not every drunk driving case will give rise to punitive damages," and only conduct meeting the elevated intentional-disregard standard goes to the jury. Second, the cap: where the 895.043(3) conduct included operating a motor vehicle, off-highway motorcycle, snowmobile, ATV, UTV or boat while under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree that rendered the defendant incapable of safe operation, the 895.043(6) cap does not apply. For the rest of a crash claim, see Wisconsin car accident laws.
Punitive damages in Wisconsin wrongful death cases
Wisconsin draws two lines in death cases.
When the victim dies. In Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260 (1980), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that "punitive damages incident to damages for pain and suffering may therefore be awarded to the estate," and "further" held "that the complaints fail to state a claim for punitive damages in the wrongful death action." So punitive damages ride on the estate's claim for the decedent's own injuries, not on the wrongful death claim for the survivors' losses.
When the wrongdoer dies. Under Wis. Stat. 895.02, when an action described in s. 895.01(1) is prosecuted to judgment against the personal representative, the plaintiff recovers only the value of goods taken, including unjust enrichment, "or for the damages actually sustained, without any vindictive or exemplary damages or damages for alleged outrage to the feelings of the injured party."
Who brings each claim and the deadlines are on the Wisconsin wrongful death page.
Government defendants and other statutory bars
Local governments and their officers and employees. Section 893.80(3) limits the amount recoverable in a tort action against a volunteer fire company, political corporation, governmental subdivision or agency, or their officers, officials, agents or employees for acts in their official capacity or in the course of their agency or employment, to $50,000 ($25,000 in an action against a volunteer fire company or its officers, officials, agents or employees), and provides: "No punitive damages may be allowed or recoverable in any such action under this subsection." Section 893.80(4) adds that no suit may be brought against such a body for the intentional torts of its officers, officials, agents or employees.
State officers, employees and agents. Under 893.82(6), the amount recoverable in a civil action against a state officer, employee or agent may not exceed $250,000, and "no punitive damages may be allowed or recoverable in any such action."
Some statutes for particular claims allow them against government bodies. Under the public records law, if a court finds that an authority or legal custodian "has arbitrarily and capriciously denied or delayed response to a request or charged excessive fees, the court may award punitive damages to the requester" (19.37(3)); the official annotation notes that such claims are limited to mandamus actions. The patient health care records statute makes "any person, including the state or any political subdivision of the state," liable for exemplary damages for violations (146.84(1)(b) and (bm)).
Solid waste facilities. In actions against owners or operators of solid waste facilities covered by section 823.085, 823.085(2)(d) provides: "Punitive damages may not be awarded."
Medical malpractice
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in Lund v. Kokemoor, 195 Wis. 2d 727 (Ct. App. 1995), "that punitive damages are not recoverable in medical malpractice claims"; the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. A separate statute provides that "a court or jury may award punitive damages" in an action for sexual exploitation by a therapist (895.441(3)). Caps on other medical malpractice damages are on the Wisconsin medical malpractice page.
Does insurance pay punitive damages in Wisconsin?
It can. In Brown v. Maxey, 124 Wis. 2d 426 (1985), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held "that the State Farm policy issued to Maxey does provide coverage for punitive damages and that such coverage is not contrary to public policy." The holding addressed the policy before the court; whether a given policy covers a punitive award depends on its terms. Brown was decided before 1995 Wis. Act 17 enacted the statute now numbered 895.043.
Wisconsin punitive damages at a glance
| Question | Wisconsin rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Where the rule comes from | Statute regulates the remedy in tort cases; not for breach of contract | Wis. Stat. 895.043; Mohns (2021) |
| Conduct standard | Malice toward the plaintiff or intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights; negligence is not enough | 895.043(3); Wischer, Strenke (2005) |
| Burden of proof | Clear and convincing evidence (from the Supreme Court; the statute is silent) | Wischer (2005) |
| General cap | Greater of twice compensatory damages recovered or $200,000; "recovered" means amounts the plaintiff is legally entitled to receive after judgment | 895.043(6); Lorbiecki, 2026 WI 12 |
| Cap exception | Intoxicated operation of a vehicle, off-highway motorcycle, snowmobile, ATV, UTV or boat rendering the defendant incapable of safe operation | 895.043(6) |
| Claim-specific limits | Separate limits in particular statutes, for example 134.90(4)(b), 134.93(5), 146.84(1), 948.051(3) | See the table above |
| Medical malpractice | Not recoverable in medical malpractice claims (Court of Appeals); therapist sexual exploitation actions allow them by statute | Lund v. Kokemoor (Ct. App. 1995); 895.441(3) |
| Joint and several liability | Does not apply to punitive damages | 895.043(5) |
| State share | No general statute | 895.043 |
| Complaint | May not state a dollar amount for a tort claim | 802.02(1m)(a) |
| Trial | Wealth evidence and special verdict once a prima facie case is made | 895.043(4) |
| Wrongful death | Not in the wrongful death action; estate may recover with the decedent's pain and suffering claim | Wangen (1980) |
| Deceased wrongdoer | No exemplary damages against the personal representative | 895.02 |
| Government | Not allowed in tort actions under 893.80(3) or actions against state officers, employees or agents; some statutes for particular claims differ | 893.80(3); 893.82(6); for example 19.37(3), 146.84(1) |
| Insurance | Coverage not contrary to public policy | Brown v. Maxey (1985) |
Recent changes
Section 895.043 was last amended by 2015 Wis. Act 170. The standard cases, Strenke and Wischer (2005), were decided under the statute's former number, 895.85, which 2005 Wis. Act 388 renumbered as 895.043. In April 2026 the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12, on how the 895.043(6) doubling limit is measured, reversing the Court of Appeals on that point.
Related pages
- Punitive damages laws by state
- Wisconsin wrongful death law
- Wisconsin car accident laws
- Wisconsin medical malpractice law
This article provides general legal information about Wisconsin punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Wisconsin.
Last updated: 2026-10-18.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Wisconsin allow punitive damages?
Yes, in tort cases. Under Wis. Stat. 895.043(3), a plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence shows the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Mohns (2021) that they are not available for breach of contract.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Wisconsin?
Generally yes: punitive damages received by the plaintiff may not exceed twice the compensatory damages recovered or $200,000, whichever is greater (895.043(6)). In Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that compensatory damages recovered includes only amounts the plaintiff is legally entitled to receive after obtaining a judgment. The cap does not apply when the defendant's conduct included operating a vehicle, ATV, snowmobile, boat or similar listed vehicle while intoxicated to a degree that made safe operation impossible, and some statutes for particular claims set their own limits.
What has to be proven for punitive damages in Wisconsin?
That the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or with intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights, meaning a purpose to disregard them or awareness the conduct was substantially certain to disregard them (895.043(3); Strenke and Wischer, 2005). The Wisconsin Supreme Court requires clear and convincing evidence, and merely negligent conduct is not enough.
Are punitive damages available in a Wisconsin drunk driving case?
They may be, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in Strenke v. Hogner (2005) that not every drunk driving case gives rise to punitive damages; the conduct must meet the intentional-disregard standard. Where it does and the defendant was intoxicated to a degree that made safe operation impossible, the 895.043(6) cap does not apply.
Are punitive damages available in a Wisconsin wrongful death case?
Not in the wrongful death action itself. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Wangen v. Ford Motor Co. (1980) that punitive damages incident to the decedent's pain and suffering may be awarded to the estate, but not in the wrongful death claim. Against a deceased wrongdoer's personal representative, 895.02 allows only actual damages.
Does Wisconsin take part of a punitive damages award?
No general Wisconsin statute gives the state a share of a punitive award; section 895.043 has no distribution provision. Sections 949.17 and 949.37 instead give the state its own action for punitive damages of up to double its damages against a person who violates them.
Are punitive damages available against a Wisconsin city, county or state employee?
Not in tort actions within 893.80(3), which covers governmental subdivisions and their officers and employees acting in an official capacity and limits recovery to $50,000. Under 893.82(6), no punitive damages are allowed in civil actions against state officers, employees or agents, where recovery is limited to $250,000. Some statutes for particular claims differ: a court may award punitive damages to a requester under the public records law (19.37(3)), and the patient health care records statute makes the state and political subdivisions liable for exemplary damages (146.84(1)).
Are punitive damages available in a Wisconsin medical malpractice case?
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in Lund v. Kokemoor (1995) that punitive damages are not recoverable in medical malpractice claims, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. A separate statute allows punitive damages in an action for sexual exploitation by a therapist (895.441(3)).
Does insurance cover punitive damages in Wisconsin?
It can. In Brown v. Maxey (1985), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the liability policy before it covered punitive damages and that such coverage is not contrary to public policy. Whether a particular policy covers an award depends on its terms.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 895: Damages, Liability, And Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Actions In Courts
§ 895.043Punitive damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Definitions. In this section: (a) “Defendant” means the party against whom punitive damages are sought. (b) “Double damages” means those court awards made under a statute providing for twice, 2 times or double the amount of damages suffered by the injured party. (c) “Plaintiff” means the party seeking to recover punitive damages. (d) “Treble damages” means those court awards made under a statute providing for 3 times or treble the amount of damages suffered by the injured party. (2) Scope. This section does not apply to awards of double damages or treble damages, or to the award of exemplary damages under ss. 46.90 (9) (a) and (b), 51.30 (9), 51.61 (7), 55.043 (9m) (a) and (b), 103.96 (2), 134.93 (5), 146.84 (1) (b) and (bm), 153.76, 252.14 (4), 252.15 (8) (a), 610.70 (7) (b), 943.245 (2) and (3) and 943.51 (2) and (3). (3) Standard of conduct. The plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. (4) Procedure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 41 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- BERNER CHEESE CORPORATION v. Krug (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 312 Wis. 2d 251)“…disregard for its rights. ¶ 63. The legislature enacted Wis. Stat. § 895.043 (3) in 1995, thereby altering Wisconsin…”
- Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2010, 325 Wis. 2d 56)“…188. The availability of punitive damages is governed by Wis. Stat. § 895.043 . 75 A plaintiff "may receive punitive…”
- Rao v. WMA Securities, Inc. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 310 Wis. 2d 623)“…The statute calls for specific *672 egregious behavior. Wis. Stat. § 895.043 . 1 Circuit courts are vested with aut…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Wisconsin (2026): Deadlines & Liability
§ 895.02Measure of damages against personal representative.In force
When any action described in s. 895.01 (1) shall be prosecuted to judgment against the personal representative, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover only for the value of the goods taken, including any unjust enrichment of the defendant, or for the damages actually sustained, without any vindictive or exemplary damages or damages for alleged outrage to the feelings of the injured party.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 893: Limitations Of Commencement Of Actions And Proceedings; Procedure For Claims Against Governmental Units
§ 893.82Claims against state employees; notice of claim; limitation of damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The purposes of this section are to: (a) Provide the attorney general with adequate time to investigate claims which might result in judgments to be paid by the state. (b) Provide the attorney general with an opportunity to effect a compromise without a civil action or civil proceeding. (c) Place a limit on the amounts recoverable in civil actions or civil proceedings against any state officer, employee or agent. (2) In this section: (a) “Civil action or civil proceeding” includes a civil action or civil proceeding commenced or continued by counterclaim, cross claim or 3rd-party complaint. (b) “Claimant” means the person or entity sustaining the damage or injury or his or her agent, attorney or personal representative. (c) “Damage” or “injury” means any damage or injury of any nature which is caused or allegedly caused by the event. “Damage” or “injury” includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental damage or injury or financial damage or injury resulting from claims for contribution or indemnification. (d) “State officer, employee or agent” includes any of the following persons: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 134 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2004, 273 Wis. 2d 76)“…726 , 348 N.W.2d 554 (1984) (failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.82 "is not waived by a failure to plead i…”
- Ferdon Ex Rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2005, 284 Wis. 2d 573)“…han the rational relationship test."). [5] See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 893.82 (6) (caps damages for plaintiffs suing…”
- Maurin v. Hall (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2004, 274 Wis. 2d 28)“…as other state employees). Representative Green alluded to Wis. Stat. § 893.82 entitled "Claims against state employe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability
§ 893.80Claims against governmental bodies or officers, agents or employees; notice of injury; limitation of damages and suits.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1b) In this section, “agent” includes a volunteer. In this subsection, “volunteer” means a person who satisfies all of the following: (a) The person provides services or performs duties for and with the express or implied consent of a volunteer fire company organized under ch. 181 or 213, political corporation, or governmental subdivision or agency thereof. A person satisfies the requirements under this paragraph even if the activities of the person with regard to the services and duties and the details and method by which the services are provided and the duties are performed are left to the discretion of the person. (b) The person is subject to the right of control of the volunteer company, political corporation, or governmental subdivision or agency described in par. (a). (c) The person is not paid a fee, salary, or other compensation by any person for the services or duties described in par. (a). In this paragraph, “compensation” does not include the reimbursement of expenses. (1d) Except as provided in subs. (1g), (1m), (1p) and (8), no action may be brought or maintained against any volunteer fire company organized under ch.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 244 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2004, 273 Wis. 2d 76)“…compliance with the governmental notice of claim statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 893.80 (1) and 893.82(3), must be pleaded or d…”
- Ferdon Ex Rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2005, 284 Wis. 2d 573)“…plaintiffs suing state employees at $250,000). See also Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (3) (caps damages for certain offenses…”
- Lodl v. Progressive Northern Insurance (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2002, 253 Wis. 2d 323)“…" exception to municipal and public officer immunity under Wis. Stat. § 893.80 (4) (1997-98). [1] ¶ 2. The plaintif…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 802: Civil Procedure
§ 802.02General rules of pleading.In force
(1) Contents of pleadings. A pleading or supplemental pleading that sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original or amended claim, counterclaim, cross claim or 3rd-party claim, shall contain all of the following: (a) A short and plain statement of the claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences out of which the claim arises and showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. (b) A demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. (1m) Relief demanded. (a) Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. With respect to a tort claim seeking the recovery of money, the demand for judgment may not specify the amount of money the pleader seeks. (b) This subsection does not affect any right of a party to specify to the jury or the court the amount of money the party seeks. (2) Defenses; form of denials. A party shall state in short and plain terms the defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 134: Miscellaneous Trade Regulations
§ 134.93Payment of commissions to independent sales representatives.In force
(1) Definitions. In this section: (a) “Commission” means compensation accruing to an independent sales representative for payment by a principal, the rate of which is expressed as a percentage of the dollar amount of orders or sales made by the independent sales representative or as a percentage of the dollar amount of profits generated by the independent sales representative. (b) “Independent sales representative” means a person, other than an insurance agent or broker, who contracts with a principal to solicit wholesale orders and who is compensated, in whole or in part, by commission. “Independent sales representative” does not include any of the following: 1. A person who places orders or purchases products for the person’s own account for resale. 2. A person who is an employee of the principal and whose wages must be paid as required under s. 109.03. (c) “Principal” means a sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation or other business entity, whether or not having a permanent or fixed place of business in this state, that does all of the following: 1. Manufactures, produces, imports or distributes a product for wholesale. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Wis. Stat. 895.043: Punitive damages(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wischer v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 2005 WI 26(www.courtlistener.com)
- Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260 (1980)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Wis. Stat. 895.02: Measure of damages against personal representative(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 893.80: Claims against governmental bodies or officers, agents or employees(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 893.82: Claims against state employees(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Brown v. Maxey, 124 Wis. 2d 426 (1985)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Wis. Stat. 134.93: Payment of commissions to independent sales representatives(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Strenke v. Hogner, 2005 WI 25(www.courtlistener.com)
- 26 U.S.C. 104: Compensation for injuries or sickness(www.govinfo.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 103.96(2)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 146.84(1)(b) and (bm): Violations related to patient health care records(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 153.76(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 255.04(9): Cancer reporting(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 252.14(4): Discrimination related to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 100.197(3): Patent notifications(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 948.051(3): Trafficking of a child(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 895.446(3)(c): Property damage or loss caused by crime(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 943.212(2)(a) and (3): Fraud on hotel or restaurant keeper, recreational attraction, taxicab operator, or gas station(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 943.245(2)(c) and (3): Worthless checks; civil liability(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 895.038(3)(b)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 949.17(3)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 949.37(3)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 802.02(1m): Relief demanded(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 823.085(2)(d): Actions against owners or operators of solid waste facilities(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12 (Wis. Apr. 15, 2026)(www.wicourts.gov).gov
- Lund v. Kokemoor, 195 Wis. 2d 727, 537 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1995)(static.case.law)
- Wis. Stat. 895.441: Sexual exploitation by a therapist; action for(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 134.90: Uniform trade secrets act(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 19.37: Enforcement and penalties (public records)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 940.302: Human trafficking(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 943.51: Retail theft; civil liability(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 706.13: Slander of title(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.