Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (2026)

Representations, warranties and conditions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

631.11631.11 Representations, warranties and conditions.

631.11(1)(1) Effect of negotiations for contract.

631.11(1)(a)(a) Statement or warranty. No statement, representation or warranty made by a person other than the insurer or an agent of the insurer in the negotiation for an insurance contract affects the insurer’s obligations under the policy unless it is stated in any of the following:

631.11(1)(a)1.1. The policy.

631.11(1)(a)2.2. A written application signed by the person, provided that a copy of the written application is made a part of the policy by attachment or endorsement.

631.11(1)(a)3.3. A written communication provided by the insurer to the insured within 60 days after the effective date of the policy.

631.11(1)(b)(b) Misrepresentation or breach of affirmative warranty. No misrepresentation, and no breach of an affirmative warranty, that is made by a person other than the insurer or an agent of the insurer in the negotiation for or procurement of an insurance contract constitutes grounds for rescission of, or affects the insurer’s obligations under, the policy unless, if a misrepresentation, the person knew or should have known that the representation was false, and unless any of the following applies:

631.11(1)(b)1.1. The insurer relies on the misrepresentation or affirmative warranty and the misrepresentation or affirmative warranty is either material or made with intent to deceive.

631.11(1)(b)2.2. The fact misrepresented or falsely warranted contributes to the loss.

631.11(3)(3) Effect of failure of condition or breach of promissory warranty. No failure of a condition prior to a loss and no breach of a promissory warranty constitutes grounds for rescission of, or affects an insurer’s obligations under, an insurance policy unless it exists at the time of the loss and either increases the risk at the time of the loss or contributes to the loss. This subsection does not apply to failure to tender payment of premium.

631.11(4)(4) Effect of insurer’s knowledge.

631.11(4)(a)(a) Knowledge when policy issued. No misrepresentation made by or on behalf of a policyholder and no breach of an affirmative warranty or failure of a condition constitutes grounds for rescission of, or affects an insurer’s obligations under, an insurance policy if at the time the policy is issued the insurer has either constructive knowledge of the facts under s. 631.09 (1) or actual knowledge. If the application is in the handwriting of the applicant, the insurer does not have constructive knowledge under s. 631.09 (1) merely because of the agent’s knowledge.

631.11(4)(b)(b) Knowledge acquired after policy issued. If after issuance of an insurance policy an insurer acquires knowledge of sufficient facts to constitute grounds for rescission of the policy under this section or a general defense to all claims under the policy, the insurer may not rescind the policy and the defense is not available unless the insurer notifies the insured within 60 days after acquiring such knowledge of its intention to either rescind the policy or defend against a claim if one should arise, or within 120 days if the insurer determines that it is necessary to secure additional medical information.

631.11(4m)(4m) Life and disability contracts.

631.11(4m)(a)(a) Copy of application to be made available. The policyholder under a life or disability insurance policy and any person whose life or health is insured under the policy may request in writing a copy of the application if he or she did not receive the policy or a copy of it, or if the policy has been reinstated or renewed without attachment of a copy of the original application. If the insurer does not deliver or mail a copy as requested within 15 working days after receipt of the request by the insurer or its agent or, in the case of a group policy certificate holder, does not inform such person within the same period how he or she may inspect the policy and application during normal business hours at a place reasonably convenient to the certificate holder, nothing in the application affects the insurer’s obligations under the policy to the person making the request. A person whose life or health is insured under a group life or disability insurance policy has the same right to request a copy of any document specified in par. (b), including the certificate.

631.11(4m)(b)(b) Statement or warranty. No statement, representation or warranty made by or on behalf of a particular certificate holder under a group life or disability insurance policy affects the insurer’s obligations under the certificate unless it is stated in the certificate, or in a written document signed by the certificate holder, a copy of which is supplied to the certificate holder or the beneficiary whose rights would be affected.

631.11(5)(5) Fraternals. This section applies to fraternals, as defined in s. 614.01 (1) (a).

631.11(6)(6) Incontestability provisions. This section is subject to ss. 632.46 and 632.76.

631.11 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 375, 421; 1977 c. 339 s. 44; Stats. 1977 s. 641.11; 1983 a. 189 s. 329 (25); 1995 a. 259.

631.11 AnnotationIf a question on a form calls for the applicant’s judgment or opinion as a lay person, any ambiguity should be construed against the insurer. Nolden v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 80 Wis. 2d 353, 259 N.W.2d 75 (1977).

631.11 AnnotationAn insured’s contradictory statements constituted a breach of the contractual duties of notice and cooperation. Dietz v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 88 Wis. 2d 496, 276 N.W.2d 808 (1979).

631.11 AnnotationThird parties may recover against an insurer even though the insured’s fraudulent application voided the policy under this section. Rauch v. American Family Insurance Co., 115 Wis. 2d 257, 340 N.W.2d 478 (1983).

631.11 AnnotationSub. (2) [now sub. (1) (b)] applies a reliance test to misrepresentations made in the negotiation or application for insurance, and not to statements made in proof of loss forms. Tempelis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 164 Wis. 2d 17, 473 N.W.2d 549 (Ct. App. 1991).

631.11 AnnotationIn order to make a written application form a part of an insurance policy by endorsement, the insurer must specifically write across the application itself that it is an endorsement and part of the policy. Smith v. Dodgeville Mutual Insurance Co., 212 Wis. 2d 226, 568 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3352.

631.11 AnnotationSub. (3) only applies to conditions subsequent to a policy becoming effective, not conditions precedent. Conditions to the making of the contract, conditions precedent, cannot be implicated by the statute because the policy has not yet come into existence. Fox v. Catholic Knights Insurance Society, 2003 WI 87, 263 Wis. 2d 207, 665 N.W.2d 181, 01-1469.

631.11 AnnotationThis section does not supersede the known-loss doctrine. That doctrine may apply whether or not the requirements of subs. (1) (b) and (4) (b) are met. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bateman, 2006 WI App 251, 297 Wis. 2d 828, 726 N.W.2d 678, 05-2219.

631.11 AnnotationSub. (1) (b) establishes the elements necessary to entitle an insurance company to rescind an insurance contract. There must be an affirmative warranty or misrepresentation, which is a question of law. Whether the statement was false, and whether the person making the statement knew, or should have known, that the statement was false are questions of fact. The burden of proof on an insurer seeking to rescind an insurance contract is clear and convincing evidence as to each element of the statute. Pum v. Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp., 2007 WI App 10, 298 Wis. 2d 497, 727 N.W.2d 346, 05-3049.

631.11 AnnotationThe term “promissory warranty” under sub. (3) is generally understood to mean a warranty that facts will continue to be as stated throughout the policy period, such that a failure of the warranty provides the insurer with a defense to a claim under the policy or a “continuing warranty.” Promissory warranties in insurance policies generally pertain to commitments by insureds designed to minimize the risk of loss. Obviously, minimizing a risk of loss can only occur prior to the loss. It is nonsensical to suggest that provisions dealing with post-loss adjustment fall into such a category. Kemper Independence Insurance Co. v. Islami, 2020 WI App 38, 392 Wis. 2d 866, 946 N.W.2d 231, 19-0488.

631.11 AnnotationAffirmed. 2021 WI 53, 397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912, 19-0488.

631.11 AnnotationIn this case, the business-use clause in the homeowner’s policy was written as an exclusion, not a warranty or a condition, so sub. (3) did not apply to the business-use clause. The terms “warranty” and “condition” do not necessarily encompass any use restriction on a property. Kutchera v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 560 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (2021).

631.11 AnnotationSub. (3) only applies to conditions subsequent. While conditions subsequent and warranties provide for the avoidance of liability for a covered loss if they are breached, exclusions declare that there never was coverage for a particular loss in the first place. In this case, the policy’s medical-certificate requirement was not a condition subsequent; it was an exclusion of coverage in cases in which the requirement was not satisfied. Thus, sub. (3) had no application to the case. Jadair International, Inc. v. American National Property & Casualty Co., 77 F.4th 546 (2023).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Fox Ex Rel. Fricker v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2003 WI 87 (Wis. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fox Ex Rel. Fricker v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2003 WI 87 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 132× “The circuit court ruled in favor of CKIS, finding that no insurance policy was in effect and that Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (3) only related to conditions subsequent and, as such, did not apply.”

Pum v. Wisconsin Physicians Serv. Ins., 727 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 22× “After the Pums incurred approximately $317,000 in medical bills, WPS rescinded the health insurance contract with them claiming a right to do so under Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (l)(b) (2003-04). 1 The Pums sued WPS, asserting claims of breach of contract and bad faith, both of which…”

Smith v. Dodgeville Mut. Ins., 568 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 20× “However, because Dodgeville's insurance policy did not endorse Smith's application in a manner sufficient to comply with § 631.11(1)(a), Stats., 1991--92, Smith had the coverage he asked Kautzer to provide.”

Fox v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2002 WI App 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 60× “We conclude that under the unusual circumstances of this case, and by operation of Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (3) (1999-2000), 1 Patrick's policy was in effect at the time of his death even if a blood test was a condition precedent to the activation of the policy, even though Patrick…”

State v. Hydrite Chem. Co., 2005 WI App 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “See Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (1)(b). [20] *676 [7] ¶ 36.”

Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. v. Bateman, 2006 WI App 251 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 19× “American Family argued that the policy was void because of Bateman's misrepresentation and it was entitled to rescind or void the policy *836 under Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (l)(b), 3 common law and the "Concealment or Fraud" provision of the policy.”

Est. of Logan Ex Rel. Fink v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 424 N.W.2d 179 (Wis. 1988). · cites it 10× “The court also found that Dowling had committed a misrepresentation when he denied knowledge of any circumstances which could result in a professional liability claim against him.”

Progressive N. Ins. v. Bachmann, 314 F. Supp. 2d 820 (W.D. Wis. 2004). · cites it 14× “Plaintiff is estopped from seeking to avoid the policy on the basis of defendant’s alleged misrepresentation concerning his boat’s horsepower because it did not provide timely notice to defendant of its intent to rescind the policy on that basis, as required by Wis. Stat. §…”

Rauch v. Am. Fam. Ins., 340 N.W.2d 478 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 10× “American Family answered claiming that the contract was void under sec. 631.11(2), Stats. 1979-1980, [1] due to certain false representations made in the application for insurance.”

Nw. Mut. Life Ins. v. Weiher, 809 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 18× “-5- Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (3). “The burden of proof on an insurance company seeking to rescind an insurance contract is .”

Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 473 N.W.2d 549 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “1 Section 631.11 provides, in pertinent part: 2 Section 41, ch.”

LaBonte v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 723 F. Supp. 392 (E.D. Wis. 1989). · cites it 19× “Moreover, the defendant argues that Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (2) does not apply where the misrepresentation is about the plaintiff’s status as a member of the group covered by a group insurance policy, and that Wis.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(1) — 1 case

Pum v. Wisconsin Physicians Serv. Ins., 727 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “After the Pums incurred approximately $317,000 in medical bills, WPS rescinded the health insurance contract with them claiming a right to do so under Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (l)(b) (2003-04). 1 The Pums sued WPS, asserting claims of breach of contract and bad faith, both of which…”

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(1)(a) — 4 cases

Smith v. Dodgeville Mut. Ins., 568 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “However, because Dodgeville's insurance policy did not endorse Smith's application in a manner sufficient to comply with § 631.11(1)(a), Stats., 1991--92, Smith had the coverage he asked Kautzer to provide.”

State v. Hydrite Chem. Co., 2005 WI App 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (1)(b). [20] *676 [7] ¶ 36.”

Midwest Com. Funding LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2019).

Robert Prunty v. Maple Valley Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(1)(b) — 5 cases

Fox Ex Rel. Fricker v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2003 WI 87 (Wis. 2003). “The circuit court ruled in favor of CKIS, finding that no insurance policy was in effect and that Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (3) only related to conditions subsequent and, as such, did not apply.”

Destiney Kashia Xiong v. Sec. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Midwest Com. Funding LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2019).

Keane v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2024).

Meriter Health Servs., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 2008 WI App 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(2) — 10 cases

Rauch v. Am. Fam. Ins., 340 N.W.2d 478 (Wis. 1983). “American Family answered claiming that the contract was void under sec. 631.11(2), Stats. 1979-1980, [1] due to certain false representations made in the application for insurance.”

Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 473 N.W.2d 549 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “1 Section 631.11 provides, in pertinent part: 2 Section 41, ch.”

Nw. Nat'l Ins. v. Nemetz, 400 N.W.2d 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).

LaBonte v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 723 F. Supp. 392 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “Moreover, the defendant argues that Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (2) does not apply where the misrepresentation is about the plaintiff’s status as a member of the group covered by a group insurance policy, and that Wis.”

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(3) — 8 cases

Fox v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2002 WI App 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We conclude that under the unusual circumstances of this case, and by operation of Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (3) (1999-2000), 1 Patrick's policy was in effect at the time of his death even if a blood test was a condition precedent to the activation of the policy, even though Patrick…”

Jadair Int'l Inc v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2022).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(4) — 5 cases

Est. of Logan Ex Rel. Fink v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 424 N.W.2d 179 (Wis. 1988). “The court also found that Dowling had committed a misrepresentation when he denied knowledge of any circumstances which could result in a professional liability claim against him.”

Wisconsin Hous. & Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 480 N.W.2d 490 (Wis. 1992).

Est. of Logan v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 409 N.W.2d 391 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

Charmoli v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co. (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(4)(a) — 1 case

Destiney Kashia Xiong v. Sec. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(4)(b) — 7 cases

Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. v. Bateman, 2006 WI App 251 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “American Family argued that the policy was void because of Bateman's misrepresentation and it was entitled to rescind or void the policy *836 under Wis. Stat. § 631.11 (l)(b), 3 common law and the "Concealment or Fraud" provision of the policy.”

Charmoli v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co. (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2023).

Destiney Kashia Xiong v. Sec. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Charmoli (E.D. Wis. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(l)(a) — 2 cases

Midland Ins. Co. v. Plescia (In re Plescia), 55 B.R. 831 (E.D. Wis. 1985).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.11(l)(b) — 2 cases

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.