Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 632.24 (2026)
Direct action against insurer
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
632.24632.24 Direct action against insurer. Any bond or policy of insurance covering liability to others for negligence makes the insurer liable, up to the amounts stated in the bond or policy, to the persons entitled to recover against the insured for the death of any person or for injury to persons or property, irrespective of whether the liability is presently established or is contingent and to become fixed or certain by final judgment against the insured.
632.24 AnnotationAn excess-of-policy coverage clause in a reinsurance agreement constituted a liability insurance contract insuring against tortious failure to settle a claim. Ott v. All-Star Insurance Corp., 99 Wis. 2d 635, 299 N.W.2d 839 (1981).
632.24 AnnotationRecovery limitations applicable to an insured municipality likewise applied to its insurer, notwithstanding higher policy limits and this section. Gonzalez v. City of Franklin, 137 Wis. 2d 109, 403 N.W.2d 747 (1987).
632.24 AnnotationInsurers must plead and prove their policy limits prior to a verdict in order to restrict the judgment to the policy limits. Price v. Hart, 166 Wis. 2d 182, 480 N.W.2d 249 (Ct. App. 1991).
632.24 AnnotationThis section does not apply to actions in which the principal on a bond under s. 344.36 causes injury. That section requires obtaining a judgment against the principal before an action may be brought against the surety. Vangsguard v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., 188 Wis. 2d 584, 525 N.W.2d 146 (Ct. App. 1994).
632.24 AnnotationThere is neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to have all parties identified to a jury, but as a procedural rule, the court should in all cases apprise the jurors of the names of all the parties. Stoppleworth v. Refuse Hideaway, Inc., 200 Wis. 2d 512, 546 N.W.2d 870 (1996), 93-3182.
632.24 AnnotationThe insured stands in privity with the insurer under this section. There is but one wrong and but one cause of action. When liability cannot be imposed upon one, none can be imposed upon the other. Plaintiff’s cashing of the defendant’s insurer’s settlement check demonstrated an accord and satisfaction of claims against the insured although the insured had not been named in the action. Parsons v. American Family Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 211, 305 Wis. 2d 630, 740 N.W.2d 399, 06-2481.
632.24 AnnotationThis section allows direct actions against a negligence insurer for negligence claims. It does not allow a plaintiff in a contract action to sue the defendant’s insurer. Rogers v. Saunders, 2008 WI App 53, 309 Wis. 2d 238, 750 N.W.2d 477, 07-0306. See also Dhein v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co., 2020 WI App 62, 394 Wis. 2d 470, 950 N.W.2d 861, 19-0531.
632.24 AnnotationThis section does not speak to whether the timely answer of an insured denying liability may inure to the benefit of a defaulting insurance company so as to preclude a judgment by default against it for the plaintiff’s damages. The timely answer of the codefendant insureds denying the liability of all defendants did not preclude default judgment against the insurer on the issue of liability and damages upon the insurer’s acknowledged default. Estate of Otto v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 2008 WI 78, 311 Wis. 2d 84, 751 N.W.2d 805, 06-1566.
632.24 AnnotationThis section applies to any policy of insurance covering liability, irrespective of whether that policy was delivered or issued for delivery in Wisconsin, so long as the accident or injury occurs in this state. Casper v. American International South Insurance Co., 2011 WI 81, 336 Wis. 2d 267, 800 N.W.2d 880, 06-1229.
632.24 AnnotationThis section does not mandate a pro rata distribution of the policy limits among all claimants. This section is silent as to how the policy limit is to be distributed. Until such time as there was a verdict in this case, policy limits paid into court were not subject to the circuit court’s control and neither the direct action statute nor Wisconsin case law required the court to distribute the policy limits in settlement on a pro rata basis. Lovelien v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 WI App 4, 379 Wis. 2d 733, 906 N.W.2d 728, 16-1679.
632.24 AnnotationThe direct action statute generally endeavors to save litigation and reduce expense by determining the rights of all parties in a single action involving the insurance carrier, to expedite the final settlement of litigation and payment to the injured person, and to place the burden on the insurer to pay damages sustained by a person as a result of the insured’s causal negligence. However, when an injured party pursues claims for damages arising out of an accident directly against an insured’s liability insurer under this section without the insured being made a party to that action, claim preclusion does not bar the insured from pursuing a negligence claim in a subsequent lawsuit against the injured party. Hull v. Glewwe, 2019 WI App 27, 388 Wis. 2d 90, 931 N.W.2d 266, 17-2485.
632.24 AnnotationThe federal compulsory counterclaim rule precluded an action against an insurer under the state direct action statute when an action directly against the insured was barred by rule. Fagnan v. Great Central Insurance Co., 577 F.2d 418 (1978).
632.24 AnnotationA breach of fiduciary duty was negligence for purposes of Wisconsin’s direct action and direct liability statutes. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 462 F. Supp. 759 (1978).
632.24 AnnotationAn insurer’s failure to join in an insured motorist’s petition to remove the case to federal court necessitated a remand to state court. Padden v. Gallaher, 513 F. Supp. 770 (1981).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 98
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Est. of Otto v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2008 WI 78 (Wis. 2008).
Est. of Otto v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2008 WI 78 (Wis. 2008). “We conclude that this argument is contrary to Wis. Stat. § 632.24 , Wisconsin's "direct action" statute.”
Casper v. Am. Int'l South Ins., 2011 WI 81 (Wis. 2011). “Only one of these four situations requires delivery of the policy in Wisconsin. 2 ¶ 5. Third, can a corporate officer be held personally liable for a non-intentional tort that occurs while he is performing his job and which is within the scope of his employment for a solvent and…”
Kenison v. Wellington Ins., 582 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “, to determine whether it limits the application of § 632.24, Stats., to policies of insurance delivered or issued for delivery in Wisconsin.”
Casper v. Am. Int'l South Ins., 2010 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 632.24 claims, commonly referred to as direct action claims.”
Lindsey Dostal v. Curtis Strand, 2023 WI 6 (Wis. 2023). “In that case, Zuk was cleaning and loading a shotgun in a hunting lodge 8 The dissent asserts that our analysis begins on the "wrong foot" because it does not focus on Wisconsin's direct action statute, Wis. Stat. § 632.24 . Dissent, ¶69. The suggested preeminence of a direct…”
Rogers ex rel. Rogers v. Saunders, 2008 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “MedPro (presumably acting as the subrogee of Aurora) apparently believes it can nevertheless enforce the Cross-Country —Aurora contract against Cross-Country's insurer under the direct action statute, Wis. Stat. § 632.24 . 4 *244 ¶ 8. This is incorrect.”
Kontowicz v. Am. Stand. Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2006 WI 48 (Wis. 2006). “¶ 74 With these points in mind, I believe the court of appeals was correct when it concluded that the statute is inconsistent *123 and ambiguous, [2] and that its ambiguity permits us to examine extrinsic sources.”
Gonzalez Ex Rel. Bichler v. City of Franklin, 403 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. 1987). “The claim against Home Indemnity was based upon its direct liability as an insurer to the plaintiffs under sec. 632.24, Stats., 4 and on a clause in its liability policy which authorized recovery up to the policy amount ($500,000).”
Decade's Monthly Income & Appreciation Fund Ex Rel. Keierleber v. Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., 495 N.W.2d 335 (Wis. 1993). “After reviewing the legislative history of sec. 632.24, Stats., we conclude that the weight of the available evidence supports Decade's proposed construction.”
Loy v. Bunderson, 320 N.W.2d 175 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 632.24, Stats., states: "632.24 Direct action against insurer.”
John Teske v. Wilson Mut. Ins. Co., 928 N.W.2d 555 (Wis. 2019). “§ 632.24, the "direct action" statute, "provides that any liability policy covering negligence makes the insurance company liable to the person entitled to recover against the insured up to policy limits.”
Nelson v. McLaughlin, 565 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. 1997). “[9] This interpretation is a logical one, as is demonstrated by the following example. Suppose that, in this case, Nelson had filed suit only against Mutual Service pursuant to Wisconsin's direct action statute, Wis.”
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.