Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 102.30 (2026)
Other insurance not affected; liability of insured employer
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
102.30(1)(1) This chapter does not affect the organization of any mutual or other insurance company or the right of the employer to insure in mutual or other companies against such liability or against the liability for the compensation provided for by this chapter.
102.30(2)(2) An employer may provide by mutual or other insurance, by arrangement with employees or otherwise, for the payment to those employees, their families, their dependents or their representatives, of sick, accident or death benefits in addition to the compensation provided under this chapter. Liability for compensation is not affected by any insurance, contribution or other benefit due to or received by the person entitled to that compensation.
102.30(3)(3) Unless an employee elects to receive sick leave benefits in lieu of compensation under this chapter, if sick leave benefits are paid during the period that temporary disability benefits are payable, the employer shall restore sick leave benefits to the employee in an amount equal in value to the amount payable under this chapter. The combination of temporary disability benefits and sick leave benefits paid to the employee may not exceed the employee’s weekly wage.
102.30(4)(4) Regardless of any insurance or other contract, an employee or dependent entitled to compensation under this chapter may recover compensation directly from the employer and may enforce in the person’s own name, in the manner provided in this chapter, the liability of any insurance company which insured the liability for that compensation. The appearance, whether general or special, of any such insurance carrier by agent or attorney constitutes waiver of the service of copy of application and of notice of hearing required by s. 102.17.
102.30(5)(5) Payment of compensation under this chapter by either the employer or the insurance company shall, to the extent thereof, bar recovery against the other of the amount so paid. As between the employer and the insurance company, payment by either the employer or the insurance company directly to the employee or the person entitled to compensation is subject to the conditions of the policy.
102.30(6)(6) The failure of the assured to do or refrain from doing any act required by the policy is not available to the insurance carrier as a defense against the claim of the injured employee or the injured employee’s dependents.
102.30(7)(a)(a) The department may order direct reimbursement out of the proceeds payable under this chapter for payments made under a nonindustrial insurance policy covering the same disability and expenses compensable under s. 102.42 when the claimant consents or when it is established that the payments under the nonindustrial insurance policy were improper. No attorney fee is due with respect to that reimbursement.
102.30(7)(b)(b) An insurer who issues a nonindustrial insurance policy described in par. (a) may not intervene as a party in any proceeding under this chapter for reimbursement under par. (a).
102.30 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 150; 1975 c. 147 ss. 25, 54; 1975 c. 199; 1985 a. 83; 1987 a. 179; 2015 a. 55; 2025 a. 33.
102.30 AnnotationThe prohibition of intervention by nonindustrial insurers under sub. (7) (b) is constitutional. An insurer is not denied a remedy for amounts wrongfully paid to its insured. It may bring a direct action the insured. Employers Health Insurance Co. v. Tesmer, 161 Wis. 2d 733, 469 N.W.2d 203 (Ct. App. 1991).
102.30 AnnotationAlthough sub. (7) (a), read in isolation, authorizes the reimbursement of a subrogated insurer, when an insurer becomes subrogated by paying medical expenses arising from injuries that are compensable under this chapter, and the employer’s worker’s compensation insurance carrier is in liquidation, s. 646.31 (11) precludes the Labor and Industry Review Commission from ordering the employer to reimburse the subrogated insurer for those expenses. Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund v. LIRC, 2005 WI App 242, 288 Wis. 2d 206, 707 N.W.2d 293, 04-2157.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 77 (Wis. 2004).
Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 77 (Wis. 2004). “Shelby asserts that Wis. Stat. § 102.30 (4) is *622 inapplicable because its only purpose is to make worker's compensation benefits primary regardless of other insurance.”
Marten Transp., Ltd. v. Hartford Specialty Co., 533 N.W.2d 452 (Wis. 1995). “§ 102.30(4), Stats. (1991-92). The circuit court concluded that the Walther firm's appearances on behalf of Marten and Hartford were not dispositive of whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the Walther firm and Hartford, but were required under § 102.”
Wisconsin Ins. Sec. Fund v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2005 WI App 242 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “42(1) of the worker's compensation statutes confer general authority on the Commission to order both employers and their worker's compensation insurance carriers to reimburse health care insurers for expenditures relating to compensable injuries like the one in this case.”
Welter v. City of Milwaukee, 543 N.W.2d 815 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, provides, "Liability for compensation is not affected by any insurance, contribution or other benefit due to or received by the person entitled to that compensation.”
Employers Health Ins. v. Tesmer, 469 N.W.2d 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “Second, sec. 102.30(7)(a), Stats., permits DILHR to order reimbursement for payments improperly made under a nonindustrial insurance policy covering the same disability and expenses.”
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “See Wis. Stat. § 102.30 (2) ("An employer may provide .”
Danielson v. Larsen Co., 541 N.W.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Wausau provided both worker's compensation insurance and employer's liability insurance to Larsen in a single policy. This single policy covers Larsen in all the states in which it conducts business, including Wisconsin.”
Modern Equip. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 20 N.W.2d 121 (Wis. 1945). “” A donation or gift, no matter by whom made, does not absolve the employer or his carrier from liability for indemnity for wage loss.”
Jack Mani v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 102.30(7)(b).10 Tesmer, 161 Wis. 2d at 736-37 .”
William C. Brown v. Muskego Norway Sch. Dist. Grp. Health Plan (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 102.30(7)(b), which precludes nonindustrial insurers from participating in worker’s compensation proceedings, is unconstitutional.”
Fagan, Robert v. Superior Refinery Co., LLC (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Wisconsin Statute § 102.30(2) identifies worker’s compensation as the “exclusive remedy against the employer, any other employee of the same employer and the worker’s compensation insurance carrier” where the conditions of liability against an employer exist under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(2) — 3 cases
Welter v. City of Milwaukee, 543 N.W.2d 815 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, provides, "Liability for compensation is not affected by any insurance, contribution or other benefit due to or received by the person entitled to that compensation.”
Danielson v. Larsen Co., 541 N.W.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Wausau provided both worker's compensation insurance and employer's liability insurance to Larsen in a single policy. This single policy covers Larsen in all the states in which it conducts business, including Wisconsin.”
Fagan, Robert v. Superior Refinery Co., LLC (W.D. Wis. 2020). “Wisconsin Statute § 102.30(2) identifies worker’s compensation as the “exclusive remedy against the employer, any other employee of the same employer and the worker’s compensation insurance carrier” where the conditions of liability against an employer exist under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(3) — 1 case
Metro. Milwaukee Ass'n of Com., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “See Wis. Stat. § 102.30 (2) ("An employer may provide .”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(4) — 3 cases
Marten Transp., Ltd. v. Hartford Specialty Co., 533 N.W.2d 452 (Wis. 1995). “§ 102.30(4), Stats. (1991-92). The circuit court concluded that the Walther firm's appearances on behalf of Marten and Hartford were not dispositive of whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the Walther firm and Hartford, but were required under § 102.”
Bosco v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 77 (Wis. 2004). “Shelby asserts that Wis. Stat. § 102.30 (4) is *622 inapplicable because its only purpose is to make worker's compensation benefits primary regardless of other insurance.”
Wisconsin Ins. Sec. Fund v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2005 WI App 242 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “42(1) of the worker's compensation statutes confer general authority on the Commission to order both employers and their worker's compensation insurance carriers to reimburse health care insurers for expenditures relating to compensable injuries like the one in this case.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(5) — 1 case
Marten Transp., Ltd. v. Hartford Specialty Co., 533 N.W.2d 452 (Wis. 1995). “§ 102.30(4), Stats. (1991-92). The circuit court concluded that the Walther firm's appearances on behalf of Marten and Hartford were not dispositive of whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the Walther firm and Hartford, but were required under § 102.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(7)(a) — 2 cases
Wisconsin Ins. Sec. Fund v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2005 WI App 242 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “42(1) of the worker's compensation statutes confer general authority on the Commission to order both employers and their worker's compensation insurance carriers to reimburse health care insurers for expenditures relating to compensable injuries like the one in this case.”
Employers Health Ins. v. Tesmer, 469 N.W.2d 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “Second, sec. 102.30(7)(a), Stats., permits DILHR to order reimbursement for payments improperly made under a nonindustrial insurance policy covering the same disability and expenses.”
— Wis. Stat. § 102.30(7)(b) — 3 cases
Employers Health Ins. v. Tesmer, 469 N.W.2d 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “Second, sec. 102.30(7)(a), Stats., permits DILHR to order reimbursement for payments improperly made under a nonindustrial insurance policy covering the same disability and expenses.”
Jack Mani v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 102.30(7)(b).10 Tesmer, 161 Wis. 2d at 736-37 .”
William C. Brown v. Muskego Norway Sch. Dist. Grp. Health Plan (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 102.30(7)(b), which precludes nonindustrial insurers from participating in worker’s compensation proceedings, is unconstitutional.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.