Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2026)
Indemnity amounts
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
632.05(1)(1) Replacement cost of coverage. An insurer may agree in a property insurance policy to indemnify the insured for the amount it would cost to repair, rebuild or replace the damaged or destroyed insured property with new materials of like size, kind and quality.
632.05(2)(2) Total loss. Whenever any policy insures real property that is owned and occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling and the property is wholly destroyed, without criminal fault on the part of the insured or the insured’s assigns, the amount of the loss shall be taken conclusively to be the policy limits of the policy insuring the property.
632.05 AnnotationThe intentional act of an insured joint owner of property does not, as a matter of law, bar an innocent insured joint owner of property from recovering under a fire insurance policy. In this case, the policy did not state whether the obligations of the insured were joint or several. Therefore, the court interpreted the language in the policy as not barring an innocent insured from recovering under the policy merely by virtue of the fact that another insured intentionally caused the damage to the insured property. Hedtcke v. Sentry Insurance Co., 109 Wis. 2d 461, 326 N.W.2d 727 (1982). But see Kemper Independence Insurance Co. v. Islami, 2021 WI 53, 397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912, 19-0488.
632.05 AnnotationAn administrative rule interpretation of sub. (2) that denies benefits solely on the basis of a past rental of the property would be unreasonable. Kohnen v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Co., 111 Wis. 2d 584, 331 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1983).
632.05 AnnotationTo have “occupied” a dwelling under sub. (2) requires actual and physical control. An inanimate entity such as an estate is incapable of occupying a dwelling under sub. (2). Drangstviet v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 195 Wis. 2d 592, 536 N.W.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0053.
632.05 AnnotationSub. (2) does not exclude any dwellings that are owned and occupied by the insured. A building need not be exclusively residential. Seider v. O’Connell, 2000 WI 76, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659, 98-1223.
632.05 AnnotationSub. (2), the valued policy law, does not provide that an insured is entitled to the limits of all policies insuring a dwelling. Instead, s. 631.43 (1), the pro rata statute, specifically governs situations when two or more policies indemnify against the same loss. Absent the consent of the insurers, insureds are entitled to the full amount of their loss but not to the full amount of both policies if the combined limits exceed the actual loss. Wegner v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 18, 298 Wis. 2d 420, 728 N.W.2d 30, 05-3193.
632.05 AnnotationSub. (2) does not exclude real property that is owned and occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling solely because it is not the insured’s primary residence, but to be covered under the statute the property must be occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling. Use is the core meaning of occupy in the context of this statute. The building must be used by the insured primarily as a residence. When the primary use of a building for at least 14 months before a fire had been renting it to others, sub. (2) did not apply. Cambier v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 200, 305 Wis. 2d 337, 738 N.W.2d 181, 06-3112.
632.05 AnnotationSub. (2) requires the insured building be occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling. The insured’s use must bear a relationship to actually living in the dwelling. The fact that the building is being renovated and refurbished does not affect its status as a dwelling. Whether or not a person ever slept in a house is not dispositive of whether the person occupied it. A dwelling does not cease to be occupied as a dwelling if the people living there temporarily vacate the dwelling for renovations or if a purchaser engages in renovations before moving in. Johnson v. Mt. Morris Mutual Insurance Co., 2012 WI App 3, 338 Wis. 2d 327, 809 N.W.2d 53, 10-2468.
632.05 AnnotationAdministrative rules provide that real property owned and occupied by the insured that is partially destroyed but ordered razed under a fire ordinance or similar law shall be considered wholly destroyed for purposes of sub. (2). The test is not whether the property has been physically destroyed. Haynes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 WI App 128, 359 Wis. 2d 87, 857 N.W.2d 478, 14-0395.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000).
Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000). “01(2)(e) (June, 1999), promulgated by the OCI to clarify Wisconsin's "valued policy law," Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2), [1] is invalid because it exceeds the rule-making authority of the OCI.”
Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 2006 WI 89 (Wis. 2006). “In Seider we considered whether the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) exceeded its authority in adopting an administrative rule interpreting the valued policy law, Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2). The valued policy law provides that anytime "real property that is owned and…”
Johnson v. Mt. Morris Mut. Ins., 2012 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Morris Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order for partial summary judgment in favor of Bernard Johnson and Kathryn Johnson, on the issue of whether the Johnsons were entitled under Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2) (2009-10), 1 to the policy limits of an insurance policy in effect…”
Drangstviet v. Auto-Owners Ins., 536 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The facts in Kohnen and their application to § 632.05, Stats., are distinguishable from this case.”
Seider v. Musser, 585 N.W.2d 885 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “01(2)(e) is invalid because it conflicts with § 632.05(2), Stats., the "valued policy law.”
Wegner v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2007 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “43 (1) does not modify Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2), 1 requiring the coverage be prorated between the two insurance companies.”
Haynes v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 2014 WI App 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2). 1 ¶ 4. Haynes argued the following: • The Raze Order, by implementing Wis.”
Wickman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 616 F. Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Wis. 2009). “The Wisconsin Valued Policy Law The first question is whether summary judgment should be granted in favor of State Farm on the Wickmans’ claim that they are entitled to the face value of the policy under Wisconsin’s “valued policy law,” which provides: Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2).…”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. City of Appleton, 2017 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Razing the home would result in a total loss, requiring payment of the homeowner policy limits pursuant to the valued policy law, Wis. Stat. § 632.05 . 3 At Auto-Owners' request, the City stipulated to extend the time within which to raze the home, allowing the McLartys until…”
Kohnen v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins., 331 N.W.2d 598 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “It claims that Kohnen’s past ren *585 tal of his cottage makes Wisconsin’s valued policy law, sec. 632.05(2), Stats., 1 inapplicable. Because the trial court correctly concluded that Kohnen’s past rental of his cottage did not deprive him of the benefits of sec.”
Cambier v. Integrity Mut. Ins., 738 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether, under Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2) (2005-06), 1 the insured occupied "primarily as a dwelling" a cabin that he owned that was damaged by fire.”
Cody Christopherson v. Am. Strategic Ins. C, 999 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2021). “” Wis. Stat. § 632.05 . The “valued policy” statute provides in relevant part: Whenever any policy insures real property that is owned and occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling and the property is wholly de- stroyed, without criminal fault on the part of the insured or…”
— Wis. Stat. § 632.05(2) — 11 cases
Seider v. O'connell, 2000 WI 76 (Wis. 2000). “01(2)(e) (June, 1999), promulgated by the OCI to clarify Wisconsin's "valued policy law," Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2), [1] is invalid because it exceeds the rule-making authority of the OCI.”
Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 2006 WI 89 (Wis. 2006). “In Seider we considered whether the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) exceeded its authority in adopting an administrative rule interpreting the valued policy law, Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2). The valued policy law provides that anytime "real property that is owned and…”
Drangstviet v. Auto-Owners Ins., 536 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The facts in Kohnen and their application to § 632.05, Stats., are distinguishable from this case.”
Seider v. Musser, 585 N.W.2d 885 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “01(2)(e) is invalid because it conflicts with § 632.05(2), Stats., the "valued policy law.”
Johnson v. Mt. Morris Mut. Ins., 2012 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Morris Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order for partial summary judgment in favor of Bernard Johnson and Kathryn Johnson, on the issue of whether the Johnsons were entitled under Wis. Stat. § 632.05 (2) (2009-10), 1 to the policy limits of an insurance policy in effect…”
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.