Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (2026)

Limitation of actions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

631.83631.83 Limitation of actions.

631.83(1)(1) Statutory periods of limitation.

631.83(1)(a)(a) Fire insurance. An action on a fire insurance policy must be commenced within 12 months after the inception of the loss. This rule also applies to riders or endorsements attached to a fire insurance policy covering loss or damage to property or to the use of or income from property from any cause, and to separate windstorm or hail insurance policies.

631.83(1)(b)(b) Disability insurance. An action on disability insurance coverage must be commenced within 3 years from the time written proof of loss is required to be furnished.

631.83(1)(c)(c) Life claims based on absence of insured. Sections 813.22 to 813.34 apply to life insurance actions based on death in which absence is relied upon as evidence of death.

631.83(1)(d)(d) Other. Except as provided in this subsection or elsewhere in chs. 600 to 646 and 655, s. 893.43 applies to actions on insurance policies.

631.83(2)(2) General law applicable to limitation of actions. Except for the prescription of time periods under sub. (1) or elsewhere in chs. 600 to 646 and 655, the general law applicable to limitation of actions as modified by ch. 893 applies to actions on insurance policies.

631.83(3)(3) Prohibited clauses of policies. No insurance policy may:

631.83(3)(a)(a) Shorten periods of limitation. Limit the time for beginning an action on the policy to a time less than that authorized by the statutes;

631.83(3)(b)(b) Limit jurisdiction. Prescribe in what court action may be brought thereon; or

631.83(3)(c)(c) Proscribe action. Provide that no action may be brought.

631.83(4)(4) Minimum waiting period for action. No action may be brought against the insurer on an insurance policy to compel payment thereunder until at least 60 days after proof of loss has been furnished as required by the policy or such proof of loss has been waived, or the insurer has denied full payment, whichever is earlier. This subsection does not apply in any case in which the verified complaint alleges facts that would establish prejudice to the complainant by reason of such delay, other than the delay itself.

631.83(5)(5) Tolling of period of limitation. The period of limitation is tolled during the period in which the parties conducted an appraisal or arbitration procedure prescribed by the insurance policy or by law or agreed to by the parties.

631.83 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 375; 1979 c. 89, 102; 1983 a. 192; 1987 a. 247; 1989 a. 187 s. 29.

631.83 AnnotationThe term “fire insurance” covers indemnity insurance for losses to property caused by many perils other than fire. Villa Clement, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 120 Wis. 2d 140, 353 N.W.2d 369 (Ct. App. 1984).

631.83 AnnotationAction by mortgagees of insured property against the insurer for paying the policy proceeds to the insured despite knowledge of the mortgagees’ interest was not on the policy and was not barred by sub. (1) (a). Picus v. Copus, 127 Wis. 2d 359, 379 N.W.2d 341 (Ct. App. 1985).

631.83 AnnotationThe s. 893.57 statute of limitations governs the intentional tort of bad faith by an insurer. Warmka v. Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance Co., 136 Wis. 2d 31, 400 N.W.2d 923 (1987).

631.83 Annotation“Inception of the loss” in sub. (1) (a) means the date on which the loss occurs, not the discovery date. Borgen v. Economy Preferred Insurance Co., 176 Wis. 2d 498, 500 N.W.2d 419 (Ct. App. 1993).

631.83 AnnotationThe failure of policyholders to give notice to an underinsurer of a settlement between the insured and the tortfeasor did not bar underinsured motorist coverage in the absence of prejudice to the insurer. There is a rebuttable presumption of prejudice when there is a lack of notice, with the burden on the insured to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the insurer was not prejudiced. Ranes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 219 Wis. 2d 49, 580 N.W.2d 197 (1998), 97-0441.

631.83 AnnotationSub. (2) clearly and unambiguously excepts the time limitations for fire insurance claims from the application of s. 893.12. Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Co., 2004 WI App 218, 277 Wis. 2d 274, 690 N.W.2d 442, 04-0461.

631.83 AnnotationAn “agreement” by the parties to engage in an appraisal procedure under sub. (5) requires something more than a mere agreement to meet and discuss a dispute between the parties. Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Co., 2004 WI App 218, 277 Wis. 2d 274, 690 N.W.2d 442, 04-0461.

631.83 AnnotationThe key word in sub. (1) (a) is not loss, but inception. In a claim arising from damage to corn yield resulting from vandalism to a corn planter, the inception of that loss was the moment overfertilized seeds were planted with the vandalized corn planter. Bronsteatter & Sons, Inc. v. American Growers Insurance Co., 2005 WI App 192, 286 Wis. 2d 782, 703 N.W.2d 757, 05-0115.

631.83 AnnotationBecause all of the statutory language surrounding sub. (5), including the statute regulating arbitration and appraisals, applies only to first-party claims, sub. (5) tolls the period of limitation only as to claims by insureds against their insurer, not to claims by third parties against a tortfeasor’s insurer. Thom v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 123, 300 Wis. 2d 607, 731 N.W.2d 657, 06-1617.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mut. Ins., 2004 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mut. Ins., 2004 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 51× “At summary judgment, the trial court ruled that Wieting's action was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (1) (2001-02). 1 We uphold this ruling.”

Thom v. OneBeacon Ins., 2007 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 30× “First, she argues the arbitration of her UIM claim against One-Beacon tolled the statute of limitations under Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (5). Second, she contends the operative date for statute of limitations purposes is the date of her original complaint because her amended complaint…”

Jones v. Secura Ins., 2002 WI 11 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 11× “The circuit court concluded that the breach of contract claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a). 5 At the same time, the circuit court *629 denied Secura's motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim.”

Arnold v. Cincinnati Ins., 2004 WI App 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “It also asserted that the exceptions from coverage for pollution and mold applied, and that the one-year statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a) barred the claim under the policy.”

Warmka v. Hartland Cicero Mut. Ins., 400 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. 1987). · cites it 5× “The issue in this case is whether a bad faith action brought by an insured against his insurer is an action on the policy within the meaning of sec. 631.83(l)(a), Stats., 1 and therefore controlled by the one-year statute of limitations; or is it a separate intentional tort…”

Borgen v. Econ. Preferred Ins., 500 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “Economy Preferred Insurance Company appeals from a summary judgment determining that plaintiffs' action is not time-barred by the limitation-of-action clause of its policy or by the statute of limitations, sec. 631.83(l)(a), Stats., applicable to actions under property damage…”

Bronsteatter & Sons, Inc. v. Am. Growers Ins., 2005 WI App 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “1 Bronsteatter argues the circuit court erred by concluding its claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (1). 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”

Ward Mgmt. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp., 598 F. Supp. 2d 923 (W.D. Wis. 2009). · cites it 14× “The employee dishonesty coverage in defendant’s policy comes within the category of “fire insurance” under Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a). Under § 631.83(l)(a), an action on a fire insurance policy must be brought within one year of the loss.”

Randal Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Comp, 771 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a). The Strausses subsequently brought this action.”

Villa Clement, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 353 N.W.2d 369 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Also in effect prior to the enactment of sec. 631.83, Stats., was a statutory classification of fire insurance.”

John Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin & Aurora Health Care, Inc., 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997). “43 , and the plaintiff claims that because the plan is in the form of an insurance policy, Wisconsin law forbids the six years’ being shortened in the contract, Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (3)(a), and that this prohibition must be borrowed for use in this ERISA suit along with the…”

Zastrow v. Journal Commc'ns, Inc., 2005 WI App 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “2d 923 (1987), was whether the one-year statute of limitations for an action on the policy under Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a) applied or whether the bad faith action was a separate intentional tort subject to Wis.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(1) — 4 cases

Martin v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 293 N.W.2d 168 (Wis. 1980).

Ward Mgmt. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp., 598 F. Supp. 2d 923 (W.D. Wis. 2009). “The employee dishonesty coverage in defendant’s policy comes within the category of “fire insurance” under Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a). Under § 631.83(l)(a), an action on a fire insurance policy must be brought within one year of the loss.”

Korkow v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 333 N.W.2d 124 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).

Hader v. Erie Ins. Co. (E.D. Wis. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(1)(a) — 7 cases

Jones v. Secura Ins., 2002 WI 11 (Wis. 2002). “The circuit court concluded that the breach of contract claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (l)(a). 5 At the same time, the circuit court *629 denied Secura's motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim.”

Picus v. Copus, 379 N.W.2d 341 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).

Bronsteatter & Sons, Inc. v. Am. Growers Ins., 2005 WI App 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “1 Bronsteatter argues the circuit court erred by concluding its claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (1). 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”

Stelpflug v. Rural Mut. Ins. Co., 922 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).

Joseph Brellenthin v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(1)(b) — 1 case

Rasmussen v. Blue cross/blue Shield, 2000 WI App 220 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(2) — 1 case

Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mut. Ins., 2004 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “At summary judgment, the trial court ruled that Wieting's action was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (1) (2001-02). 1 We uphold this ruling.”

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(2)(a) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(3) — 2 cases

Rasmussen v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, Inc., 2000 WI App 220 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

Rasmussen v. Blue cross/blue Shield, 2000 WI App 220 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(3)(a) — 1 case

Lundsten v. Creative Cmty. Living Servs., Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Wis. 2015).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(5) — 3 cases

Thom v. OneBeacon Ins., 2007 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “First, she argues the arbitration of her UIM claim against One-Beacon tolled the statute of limitations under Wis. Stat. § 631.83 (5). Second, she contends the operative date for statute of limitations purposes is the date of her original complaint because her amended complaint…”

Joseph Brellenthin v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(l)(a) — 6 cases

Warmka v. Hartland Cicero Mut. Ins., 400 N.W.2d 923 (Wis. 1987). “The issue in this case is whether a bad faith action brought by an insured against his insurer is an action on the policy within the meaning of sec. 631.83(l)(a), Stats., 1 and therefore controlled by the one-year statute of limitations; or is it a separate intentional tort…”

Borgen v. Econ. Preferred Ins., 500 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Economy Preferred Insurance Company appeals from a summary judgment determining that plaintiffs' action is not time-barred by the limitation-of-action clause of its policy or by the statute of limitations, sec. 631.83(l)(a), Stats., applicable to actions under property damage…”

Picus v. Copus, 379 N.W.2d 341 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).

— Wis. Stat. § 631.83(l)(b) — 2 cases

Rasmussen v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, Inc., 2000 WI App 220 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

Lundsten v. Creative Cmty. Living Servs., Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Wis. 2015).

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.