2014 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
893. Limitations of commencement of actions and proceedings and procedure for claims against governmental units.
893.43 Action on contract.
893.43 Action on contract. An action upon any contract, obligation or liability, express or implied, including an action to recover fees for professional services, except those mentioned in s. 893.40, shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred.
A bonus plan to compensate for increased profits is a contract. Younger v. Rosenow Paper & Supply Co. 51 Wis. 2d 619, 188 N.W.2d 507 (1971).
An action to recover benefits under a pension plan is an action to enforce a contract, not an action for wages. Estate of Schroeder v. Gateway Transportation Co., Inc. 53 Wis. 2d 59, 191 N.W.2d 860 (1971).
An action for personal injuries resulting from medical malpractice, although based on contract, is subject to the 3-year limitation for injuries to the person. Estate of Kohls v. Brah, 57 Wis. 2d 141, 203 N.W.2d 666 (1973).
An action by an insured against an insurance agent for failing to procure requested coverage is not an action against the insurer on the policy, but is an action resting upon the agent's contract with the insured to procure the insurance coverage agreed upon subject to the statute of limitations for contract. Estate of Ensz v. Brown Insurance Agency, Inc. 66 Wis. 2d 193, 223 N.W.2d 903 (1974).
A cause of action for contribution is based upon a contract implied by law and must be brought within 6 years after one joint tortfeasor has paid more than his or her share. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Osborn Plumbing, 66 Wis. 2d 454, 225 N.W.2d 628 (1973).
When an employer deducted a "hypothetical tax factor" from salaries of its overseas employees so as to equalize compensation of its employees worldwide, an action to recover amounts so deducted had to be brought within the limitation period on wage claims, and not the period on other contract claims. Sussmann v. Gleisner, 80 Wis. 2d 435, 259 N.W.2d 114 (1977).
If the object of a disputed contract is the end product or fruit of human labor rather than the labor per se, s. 893.19 (3) [now s. 893.43], applies rather than s. 893.21 (5) [now s. 893.44]. Rupp v. O'Connor, 81 Wis. 2d 436, 261 N.W.2d 815 (1978).
Partial payment of an obligation made prior to the running of the statute of limitations tolls the statute and sets it running from the date of payment. St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center v. Tarkenton, 103 Wis. 2d 422, 309 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1981).
A breach of a roofing contract occurred when the faulty roof was completed, not when the building was completed. State v. Holland Plastics Co. 111 Wis. 2d 497, 331 N.W.2d 320 (1983).
An unjust enrichment claim accrues when a cohabitational relationship terminates. The court does not determine what statute of limitations, if any, applies. Watts (Bischoff) v. Watts, 152 Wis. 2d 370, 448 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989).
A contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach. The discovery rule is inapplicable. CLL Associates v. Arrowhead Pacific, 174 Wis. 2d 604, 497 N.W.2d 115 (1993).
This section applies to actions for the recovery of sales commissions. Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc. 181 Wis. 2d 736, 512 N.W.2d 487 (1994).
A party's deficient performance of a contract does not give rise to a tort claim. There must be a duty independent of the contract for a cause of action in tort. Atkinson v. Everbrite, Inc. 224 Wis. 2d 724, 592 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1806.
For actions seeking coverage under an underinsured motorist policy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of loss, which is the date on which a final resolution is reached in the underlying claim against the tortfeasor, be it through denial of that claim, settlement, judgment, execution of releases, or other form of resolution, whichever is the latest. Yocherer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2002 WI 41, 252 Wis. 2d 114, 643 N.W.2d 457, 00-0944.
The label of the documents here — "access easement agreement" — and the fact that each was signed by both parties did not transform the grants of easement into contracts subject to contract law. The plaintiffs alleged that a driveway could not be built on the easements described in the agreements because of a wetland delineation and sought a modification of the easements. This claim for relief was an action to enforce the recorded easements, albeit a modified version, and was therefore governed by s. 893.33 (6), not the contract statute, s. 893.43.
An unconscionability of contract claim is governed by this section. Dairyland Power Coop. v. Amax Inc. 700 F. Supp. 979 (1986).
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Wisconsin may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
