Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 618.44 (2026)

Effect of illegal contracts

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

618.44618.44 Effect of illegal contracts. An insurance contract entered into in violation of this chapter is unenforceable by, but enforceable against, the insurer. The terms of the contract are governed by chs. 600 to 646 and 655 and rules promulgated thereunder. If the insurer does not pay a claim or loss payable under the contract, any person who assisted in the procurement of the contract is liable to the insured for the full amount of the claim or loss, if the person knew or should have known the contract was illegal.

618.44 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 260; 1979 c. 89; 1979 c. 102 s. 236 (8); 1979 c. 177; 1989 a. 187 s. 29.

618.44 AnnotationNothing in the text of this section suggests that an insurer’s having been joined as a defendant prevents a plaintiff from also seeking relief from an insurance agency. What matters under the statute is whether the insurer has refused to pay a covered claim before the plaintiff files suit against the agency. Midwest Commercial Funding, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1040 (2017).

618.44 AnnotationAn insurer “enforces” an insurance policy against the insured by collecting the policy premiums. Refusing to pay a claim is not enforcing the policy. It is the insured who seeks to enforce the policy by making a claim for benefits. When the insurer denies the claim based on a policy exclusion, it is simply defending against the insured’s claim, not prosecuting its own claim for enforcement of the contract. Midwest Commercial Funding, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co., 399 F. Supp. 3d 736 (2019).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: Combined Investigative Servs., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins., 477 N.W.2d 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Combined Investigative Servs., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins., 477 N.W.2d 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See sec. 618.44, Stats. Given this factual dispute, the trial court initially decided that summary judgment was inappropriate.”

Midwest Com. Funding LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2019). · cites it 18× “See Wis. Stat. § 618.44 . Midwest contends that if the Cincinnati policy is found to cover the loss at issue in this case and is also found to be an illegal policy, then Marsh and CSU Producer Resources will be jointly and severally liable with Cincinnati for payment of the loss.”

Midwest Com. Funding, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1040 (E.D. Wis. 2017). · cites it 6× “The second provision, Wis. Stat. § 618.44 , provides in relevant part as follows: An insurance contract entered into in violation of this chapter is unenforceable by, but enforceable against, the insurer.”

Whitecap Mountain Rec., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co. (W.D. Wis. 2021). · cites it 2× “This violation would render the AXIS policy “illegal” under § 618.44, which would mean that the policy would be subject to the full requirements of the Wisconsin Insurance Code, including the non-renewal provisions in § 631.”

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.