inducement exception in Wisconsin

12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co.green wis · 2005 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2007–2026 2 sentences 2026Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111, ¶42 , 283 Wis. 2d 555 , 699 N.W.2d 205 (“[t]o invoke this narrow fraud in the inducement exception,” the misrepresentation must occur “before the contract was formed”). 2026Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111, ¶42 , 283 Wis. 2d 555 , 699 N.W.2d 205 (“[t]o invoke this narrow fraud in the inducement exception,” the misrepresentation must occur “before the contract was formed”).	4	7
Chris Hinrichs v. DOW Chemical Companygreen wis · 2020 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Hinrichs, 389 Wis. 2d 669, ¶33 (citing Kaloti Enters., Inc., 283 Wis. 2d 555, ¶42 ).	1	1
Kailin v. Armstronggreen wisctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Id. at 137-38 (concluding that "the economic loss doctrine does not preclude a plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation when the misrepresentation fraudulently induces a plaintiff to enter into the contract"); see also Kailin v. Armstrong, 2002 WI App 70, ¶ 30 , 252 Wis. 2d 676 , 643 N.W.2d 132 (applying the general fraud in the inducement exception as articulated in Douglas-Hanson). 2005Id. at 137-38 (concluding that "the economic loss doctrine does not preclude a plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation when the misrepresentation fraudulently induces a plaintiff to enter into the contract"); see also Kailin v. Armstrong, 2002 WI App 70, ¶ 30 , 252 Wis. 2d 676 , 643 N.W.2d 132 (applying the general fraud in the inducement exception as articulated in Douglas-Hanson).	1	1
Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., Inc.green wied · 1997 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Wis. 1998) (predicting that Wisconsin would provide a general fraud in the inducement exception); Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., 979 F. Supp. 858, 872 (E.D. 583 Wis. 1997) (predicting that Wisconsin would adopt the narrow Huron Tool exception for fraud in the inducement claims). ¶ 37. 2005*Wis. 1998) (predicting that Wisconsin would provide a general fraud in the inducement exception); Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., 979 F. Supp. 858, 872 (E.D.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc. green michctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2007We explained that to invoke 869 this narrow fraud in the inducement exception, a plaintiff must demonstrate: "(1) there was an intentional misrepresentation . . .; (2) the misrepresentation occurred before the contract was formed . . .; and (3) the fraud [was] extraneous to, rather than interwoven with, the contract." Id., ¶ 42, 532 N.W.2d 541 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2004*Digicorp, 262 Wis. 2d 32, ¶3 . ¶48 The Digicorp decision extensively discussed Huron Tool and Engineering Company v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc., 209 Mich. App. 365 , 532 N.W.2d 541 (1995), and Douglas-Hanson Company, Inc. v. BF Goodrich Company, 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), two cases dealing with fraud in the inducement exceptions to the economic loss doctrine. ¶49 The Huron Tool decision adopted a narrow fraud in the inducement exception, concluding that a "plaintiff may only pursue a claim for fraud in the inducement extraneous to the alleged breach of contract.	5	2003–2007
Digicorp, Inc. v. AMERITECH CORP. green wis · 2003 2 sentences 2007As a general rule, "the economic loss doctrine requires transacting parties in Wisconsin to pursue only their contractual remedies when asserting an economic loss claim, in order to preserve the distinction between contract and tort law." Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶ 34 , 262 Wis.2d 32 , 662 N.W.2d 652 . ¶ 40 In Kaloti, we adopted a narrow fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine. 2007As a general rule, "the economic loss doctrine requires transacting parties in Wisconsin to pursue only their contractual remedies when asserting an economic loss claim, in order to preserve the distinction between contract and tort law." Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶ 34 , 262 Wis.2d 32 , 662 N.W.2d 652 . ¶ 40 In Kaloti, we adopted a narrow fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine.	3	2004–2007
Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co. green wisctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2005Then, in Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), the court of appeals held that there was a general fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine. 2005Then, in Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), the court of appeals held that there was a general fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine.	3	2003–2005
Segall v. Hurwitz green wisctapp · 1983 2 sentences 2023We agree. ¶41 We note first that the Investors do not appear to have argued before the circuit court that the fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine applies, and that “[w]e normally will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal.” See Segall v. Hurwitz, 114 Wis. 2d 471, 489 , 339 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1983). 2023We agree. ¶41 We note first that the Investors do not appear to have argued before the circuit court that the fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine applies, and that “[w]e normally will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal.” See Segall v. Hurwitz, 114 Wis. 2d 471, 489 , 339 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1983).	1	2023–2023
Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co. green wis · 2000 2 sentences 2003This rule is not as broad as the rule adopted by the court of appeals in Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), which we reviewed and which resulted in a three-to-three vote on this court and a per curiam opinion, 1 Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 2000 WI 22 , 233 Wis. 2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 . 2003This rule is not as broad as the rule adopted by the court of appeals in Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132 , 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), which we reviewed and which resulted in a three-to-three vote on this court and a per curiam opinion, 1 Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 2000 WI 22 , 233 Wis. 2d 276 , 607 N.W.2d 621 .	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 100.18 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.02 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 802.06 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 893.43 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 21 (1977–2026) FL 13 (1988–2016) WI 12 (2003–2026) CA 9 (1958–2024) TX 9 (1981–2025) OH 6 (1907–2024) MD 6 (1975–2006) GA 5 (1994–2015) UT 4 (2004–2018) MA 4 (2000–2012) NC 3 (2017–2025) PA 3 (2006–2022) IL 3 (1994–2021) MI 3 (1991–2021) WV 3 (2010–2019) AL 2 (1989–2002) VA 2 (1999–2009) OK 2 (1989–2009) CO 2 (1998–2014) MO 2 (1962–1980) NJ 2 (1993–1998) ME 2 (2003–2006) NM 2 (2006–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check