Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (2026)
Mandatory indemnification
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
180.0851(1)(1) A corporation shall indemnify a director or officer, to the extent that he or she has been successful on the merits or otherwise in the defense of a proceeding, for all reasonable expenses incurred in the proceeding if the director or officer was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation.
180.0851(2)(a)(a) In cases not included under sub. (1), a corporation shall indemnify a director or officer against liability incurred by the director or officer in a proceeding to which the director or officer was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation, unless liability was incurred because the director or officer breached or failed to perform a duty that he or she owes to the corporation and the breach or failure to perform constitutes any of the following:
180.0851(2)(a)1.1. A willful failure to deal fairly with the corporation or its shareholders in connection with a matter in which the director or officer has a material conflict of interest.
180.0851(2)(a)2.2. A violation of the criminal law, unless the director or officer had reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was lawful or no reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was unlawful.
180.0851(2)(a)3.3. A transaction from which the director or officer derived an improper personal profit.
180.0851(2)(b)(b) Determination of whether indemnification is required under this subsection shall be made under s. 180.0855.
180.0851(2)(c)(c) The termination of a proceeding by judgment, order, settlement or conviction, or upon a plea of no contest or an equivalent plea, does not, by itself, create a presumption that indemnification of the director or officer is not required under this subsection.
180.0851(3)(3) A director or officer who seeks indemnification under this section shall make a written request to the corporation.
180.0851(4)(a)(a) Indemnification under this section is not required to the extent limited by the articles of incorporation under s. 180.0852.
180.0851(4)(b)(b) Indemnification under this section is not required if the director or officer has previously received indemnification or allowance of expenses from any person, including the corporation, in connection with the same proceeding.
180.0851 AnnotationIndemnification under this section is not self-executing. Certain formalities are required that prevent after-the-fact justification for taking corporate funds for personal use. Without these formalities, an officer could direct the corporation to pay funds for his own defense and only later assert that he or she had been indemnified by the corporation. Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54, 325 Wis. 2d 287, 785 N.W.2d 328, 07-0477.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010).
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) and (2) require indemnification of an officer under certain circumstances when the officer "was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation.”
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLC, 2014 WI 86 (Wis. 2014). “¶54 To explain further, the exceptions from mandatory indemnification under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 are the same as the four exceptions set out in Wis.”
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2008 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “In addition, Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 provides that an officer or director of a corporation is entitled to indemnification for liability for acts undertaken in his or her capacity as an officer or director.”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “0851 (1), which requires a corporation to “indemnify a director or officer, to the extent that he or she has been successful on the merits or otherwise in the defense of a proceeding, 1 Presumably, the amount was less than $115,000 ($395,000 - $280,000) because interest had…”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2023). “Chris is not entitled to indemnification under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) because he has not been successful on the merits.”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “The statute is silent on an officer’s indemnification rights in that situation, and neither side makes an argument that the statute does or does not require indemnification for a case that involves a mix of claims such as the state-court suit here.”
— Wis. Stat. § 180.0851(1) — 2 cases
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) and (2) require indemnification of an officer under certain circumstances when the officer "was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation.”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “0851 (1), which requires a corporation to “indemnify a director or officer, to the extent that he or she has been successful on the merits or otherwise in the defense of a proceeding, 1 Presumably, the amount was less than $115,000 ($395,000 - $280,000) because interest had…”
— Wis. Stat. § 180.0851(2) — 3 cases
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLC, 2014 WI 86 (Wis. 2014). “¶54 To explain further, the exceptions from mandatory indemnification under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 are the same as the four exceptions set out in Wis.”
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) and (2) require indemnification of an officer under certain circumstances when the officer "was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation.”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2023). “Chris is not entitled to indemnification under Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) because he has not been successful on the merits.”
— Wis. Stat. § 180.0851(3) — 2 cases
Ehlinger v. Hauser, 2010 WI 54 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 180.0851 (1) and (2) require indemnification of an officer under certain circumstances when the officer "was a party because he or she is a director or officer of the corporation.”
Schneider, Carl v. Hybrid Car Store, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “0851 (1), which requires a corporation to “indemnify a director or officer, to the extent that he or she has been successful on the merits or otherwise in the defense of a proceeding, 1 Presumably, the amount was less than $115,000 ($395,000 - $280,000) because interest had…”
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.