misrepresentation claim in Wisconsin

2025STAT. §§ 895.446 and 943.20(1)(d): “(1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false; (3) the defendant intended to deceive and defraud the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff was deceived; (5) the plaintiff was defrauded; and (6) the defendant obtained money through the sale of property to the plaintiff.” 2023 WI 27, ¶15 , 406 Wis. 2d 542 , 988 N.W.2d 606 .

2025STAT. §§ 895.446 and 943.20(1)(d): “(1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false; (3) the defendant intended to deceive and defraud the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff was deceived; (5) the plaintiff was defrauded; and (6) the defendant obtained money through the sale of property to the plaintiff.” 2023 WI 27, ¶15 , 406 Wis. 2d 542 , 988 N.W.2d 606 .

2022Co. v. Bankruptcy Est. of Lake Geneva Sugar Shack, Inc., 215 Wis. 2d 104 , 116-17, 572 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1997) (not discussing prejudice in setting forth the elements of the insurer’s misrepresentation defense to the insured’s business interruption claim); cf. Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.

2022Co. v. Bankruptcy Est. of Lake Geneva Sugar Shack, Inc., 215 Wis. 2d 104 , 116-17, 572 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1997) (not discussing prejudice in setting forth the elements of the insurer’s misrepresentation defense to the insured’s business interruption claim); cf. Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.

2021Instead, the punitive damages questions were explicitly dependent upon the jury's responses to question 4, which asked the jury what sum would compensate Mohns for damages arising from breach of contract, and question 5, which asked the jury what sum would compensate Mohns for damages arising from the quasi-contract claim of unjust enrichment.8 The special verdict form instructed the jury: "If you awarded damages to any component of question 4 or question 5, then answer this question" with question 6 immediately after: "Did BMO Harris Bank National Association act maliciously toward Mohns Inc.

2016All of the justices, however, agreed that a misrepresentation claim under [the relevant administrative code provision] required a degree of 'volition' that was inconsistent with the idea of an 'accident.' " Id. at 764 (citing Stuart, 311 Wis. 2d 492, ¶¶ 28-35 ).

2016All of the justices, however, agreed that a misrepresentation claim under [the relevant administrative code provision] required a degree of 'volition' that was inconsistent with the idea of an 'accident.' " Id. at 764 (citing Stuart, 311 Wis. 2d 492, ¶¶ 28-35 ).

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2012The use of waiver and estoppel to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture provision is illustrated in Von Uhl v. Trempealeau County Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis. 2d 32, 41 , 146 N.W.2d 516 (1966) (after continuing to accept late payments from the insured, the insurer was estopped from insisting upon enforcing a forfeiture clause); Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 367-70 , 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977) (the court held that the misrepresentation clause was subject to waiver or estoppel); and Nugent v. Slaght, 2001 WI App 282, ¶¶ 19-35 , 249 Wis. 2d 220 , 638 N.W.2d 594 (determ

2008The court subsequently accorded statutory double damages and attorney fees to only the percentage of the award assigned to the misrepresentation claim. ¶ 3 The court of appeals reversed. [3] The damage award and related issues raised in that appeal are the subjects of the companion case, Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 , ___ Wis.2d ___, 746 N.W.2d 762 ( Stuart I ), which was released earlier this term. ¶ 4 The subject of the present opinion is a separate appeal by American Family, in which the insurance company asks us to determine whether WSGI's CGL insurance policy co

2008The court subsequently accorded statutory double damages and attorney fees to only the percentage of the award assigned to the misrepresentation claim. ¶ 3 The court of appeals reversed. [3] The damage award and related issues raised in that appeal are the subjects of the companion case, Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 , ___ Wis.2d ___, 746 N.W.2d 762 ( Stuart I ), which was released earlier this term. ¶ 4 The subject of the present opinion is a separate appeal by American Family, in which the insurance company asks us to determine whether WSGI's CGL insurance policy co

2006Kornitz, 49 Wis. 2d at 103 .

2006Kornitz, 49 Wis.2d at 103 , 181 N.W.2d 403 .

2006We acknowledged that "Wisconsin follows the general rule that integration clauses which negate the existence of any representations not incorporated into the contract may not be used to escape liability for the misrepresentations!!,]" id. at 59-60 , ultimately reversing the order granting summary judgment on the misrepresentation claim, id. at 62 . ¶ 34.

2006We acknowledged that "Wisconsin follows the general rule that integration clauses which negate the existence of any representations not incorporated into the contract may not be used to escape liability for the misrepresentations!!,]" id. at 59-60 , ultimately reversing the order granting summary judgment on the misrepresentation claim, id. at 62 . ¶ 34.

2003Harley-Davidson, Id. at 985 (citing Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis. 2d 395 , 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998)).

2003Harley-Davidson, Id. at 985 (citing Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis. 2d 395 , 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998)).

2000In response, the Buyers' counsel cited Head & Seemann, Inc. v. Gregg, 104 Wis. 2d 156 , 311 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1981) and Tuchalski v. Moczynski, 152 Wis. 2d 517 , 449 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989), for the proposition that election of remedies is not necessary unless the awards of damages are dupli-cative or inconsistent, and these damages were neither.

2000In response, the Buyers' counsel cited Head & Seemann, Inc. v. Gregg, 104 Wis. 2d 156 , 311 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1981) and Tuchalski v. Moczynski, 152 Wis. 2d 517 , 449 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989), for the proposition that election of remedies is not necessary unless the awards of damages are dupli-cative or inconsistent, and these damages were neither.

2000In response, the Buyers' counsel cited Head & Seemann, Inc. v. Gregg, 104 Wis. 2d 156 , 311 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1981) and Tuchalski v. Moczynski, 152 Wis. 2d 517 , 449 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989), for the proposition that election of remedies is not necessary unless the awards of damages are dupli-cative or inconsistent, and these damages were neither.

2000In response, the Buyers' counsel cited Head & Seemann, Inc. v. Gregg, 104 Wis. 2d 156 , 311 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1981) and Tuchalski v. Moczynski, 152 Wis. 2d 517 , 449 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989), for the proposition that election of remedies is not necessary unless the awards of damages are dupli-cative or inconsistent, and these damages were neither.

1997Relying on Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., 94 Wis. 2d 17, 24 , 288 N.W.2d 95 (1980), the plaintiffs assert that a claim should not be dismissed unless "it is quite clear that under no conditions can the plaintiff recover." ¶ 19.

1997Relying on Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., 94 Wis. 2d 17, 24 , 288 N.W.2d 95 (1980), the plaintiffs assert that a claim should not be dismissed unless "it is quite clear that under no conditions can the plaintiff recover." ¶ 19.