Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (2026)
Notice and proof of loss
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
631.81(1)(1) Timeliness of notice. Provided notice or proof of loss is furnished as soon as reasonably possible and within one year after the time it was required by the policy, failure to furnish such notice or proof within the time required by the policy does not invalidate or reduce a claim unless the insurer is prejudiced thereby and it was reasonably possible to meet the time limit.
631.81(2)(2) Method of giving notice. It is a sufficient service of notice or proof of loss if a 1st class postage prepaid envelope addressed to the insurer and containing the proper notice or proof is deposited in any U.S. post office within the time prescribed. The commissioner may expressly approve clauses requiring more expeditious methods of notice where that is reasonable.
631.81(3)(3) Meaning of insurer’s acts. The acknowledgment by the insurer of the receipt of notice, the furnishing of forms for filing proofs of loss, the acceptance of such proofs, or the investigation of any claim are not alone sufficient to waive any of the rights of the insurer in defense of any claim arising under the insurance contract.
631.81 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).
631.81 AnnotationWhen the insured fails to give notice within one year after the time required in the policy, there is a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, and the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove that the insurer is not prejudiced. Neff v. Pierzina, 2001 WI 95, 245 Wis. 2d 285, 629 N.W.2d 177, 99-1069.
631.81 AnnotationAn insurer is prejudiced by late notice when the insurer has been denied the opportunity to have input into how the underlying claim is being defended. An insured may not assume that if its insurer had been given the opportunity to make a timely investigation, it would have produced the same result as that produced by the insured’s own investigation or that any discovery that the insurer would have conducted would parallel that already conducted by the insured. Phoenix Contractors, Inc. v. Affiliated Capital Corp., 2004 WI App 103, 273 Wis. 2d 736, 681 N.W.2d 310, 03-2259.
631.81 AnnotationWisconsin’s notice-prejudice statutes, this section and s. 632.26, do not supersede the reporting requirement specific to claims-made-and-reported policies. Anderson v. Aul, 2015 WI 19, 361 Wis. 2d 63, 862 N.W.2d 304, 13-0500.
631.81 AnnotationThe Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts state law related to any covered employee benefit plan but does not preempt state regulation of insurance. This section regulates insurance and is not preempted. Bogusewski v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, 977 F. Supp. 1357 (1997).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Melissa Anderson v. Thomas Aul, 2015 WI 19 (Wis. 2015).
Melissa Anderson v. Thomas Aul, 2015 WI 19 (Wis. 2015). “Lastly, we interpret the relevant statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 631.81 (1) and 632.26(2), and discuss their application to the WILMIC policy.”
Robert H. Shugarts, II v. Dennis M. Mohr, 909 N.W.2d 402 (Wis. 2018). “We further conclude that Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (1) (2009-10) 2 does not apply to the UIM policy provision at issue.”
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 2003 WI 108 (Wis. 2003). “A second provision of the CGL policy requires the insured to immediately forward process to the insurer: "If a claim is made or suit is brought against the insured, the insured shall immediately forward to the company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by…”
Kontowicz v. Am. Stand. Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2006 WI 48 (Wis. 2006). “It cites Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (approved as part of the same Chapter 375, Laws of 1975, that initially linked § 628.”
Neff v. Pierzina, 2001 WI 95 (Wis. 2001). “Wisconsin Stat. § 631.81 is entitled "Notice and proof of loss.”
City of Edgerton v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 493 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “General Casualty asserts that the insureds' contention is in direct contradiction to sec. 631.81(1), Stats., which was construed in Gerrard.”
Ranes v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 580 N.W.2d 197 (Wis. 1998). “26 (2) (notice required under a liability policy); 7 Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (notice of proof of loss); 8 Wis.”
Gerrard Realty Corp. v. Am. States Ins., 277 N.W.2d 863 (Wis. 1979). “Even though the respective counsel did not directly raise the issue of the applicability of sec. 631.81, Stats., dealing with the question of the proof of prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to give timely notice, the court takes this opportunity to discuss the statute…”
Lexington Ins. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that -the claims were made within the policy’s coverage period.”
State v. Hydrite Chem. Co., 2005 WI App 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (1). [9] Hydrite points to language in our earlier decision on this appeal, see footnote 3, in support of its position that it did not know the extent of the contamination in 1983.”
Bradley Corp. v. Zurich Ins., 984 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “Under the terms of the policies themselves, Bradley might lose any coverage for defense of the Sarafolean lawsuit based on its failure to notify Zurich in a timely manner.”
Anderson v. Aul, 2014 WI App 30 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 631.81 , an insurer whose insured provides notice within one year of the time required by the policy must show that it was prejudiced and that it was reasonably possible to meet the time limit.”
— Wis. Stat. § 631.81(1) — 11 cases
Robert H. Shugarts, II v. Dennis M. Mohr, 909 N.W.2d 402 (Wis. 2018). “We further conclude that Wis. Stat. § 631.81 (1) (2009-10) 2 does not apply to the UIM policy provision at issue.”
City of Edgerton v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 493 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “General Casualty asserts that the insureds' contention is in direct contradiction to sec. 631.81(1), Stats., which was construed in Gerrard.”
Bradley Corp. v. Zurich Ins., 984 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “Under the terms of the policies themselves, Bradley might lose any coverage for defense of the Sarafolean lawsuit based on its failure to notify Zurich in a timely manner.”
Garcia Ex Rel. Ladd v. Regent Ins. Co., 481 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Lexington Ins. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that -the claims were made within the policy’s coverage period.”
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.