Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (2026)
Notice provisions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
632.26(1)(a)(a) That notice given by or on behalf of the insured to any authorized agent of the insurer within this state, with particulars sufficient to identify the insured, is notice to the insurer.
632.26(1)(b)(b) That failure to give any notice required by the policy within the time specified does not invalidate a claim made by the insured if the insured shows that it was not reasonably possible to give the notice within the prescribed time and that notice was given as soon as reasonably possible.
632.26(2)(2) Effect of failure to give notice. Failure to give notice as required by the policy as modified by sub. (1) (b) does not bar liability under the policy if the insurer was not prejudiced by the failure, but the risk of nonpersuasion is upon the person claiming there was no prejudice.
632.26 AnnotationLegislative Council Note, 1979: Subsection (1) is former s. 632.32 (1), altered in 2 ways: (1) to extend its coverage to all liability policies; and (2) to change “may” to “shall”. The subsection is divided into 2 paragraphs for clarity.
632.26 AnnotationThe first change would strengthen the law. It is entirely new and seems a desirable extension.
632.26 AnnotationThe second change corrects an error. The word “shall” was used in the fourth draft of the bill that ultimately became ch. 375, laws of 1975, and was not changed in the addendum to the fourth draft, dated July 14, 1975. Those documents went to the insurance laws revision committee and then to the legislative council for action. Nothing appears in the minutes of the committee’s meeting of July 14, 1975 to indicate that a change was made. But in LRB-6218/1 of 1975, “may” appears instead of “shall”. That error, which was probably inadvertent and the source of which we have not been able to trace, was carried on into the final enactment.
632.26 AnnotationSub. (2) continues the second sentence of former s. 632.34 (4). Shifting it to s. 632.26, which is applicable to all liability insurance, broadens its application, but that seems desirable. The term “burden of proof” is changed to “risk of nonpersuasion” to tighten up the meaning. “Burden of proof” is a broad term that comprehends 2 separate concepts: (1) the burden of going forward with the evidence and (2) the burden of persuading the trier of fact, better termed the “risk of nonpersuasion”. See McCormick, Evidence, (2nd ed.), at 784 n. 4 (1972). The statute is concerned with determining who wins when the totality of evidence is inconclusive, not with the burden of going forward, which ought to be settled on the basis of general principles. Indeed, since the insurer will have best (or the only) access to information about prejudice, it may be quite unfair to put the burden of going forward on the claimant.
632.26 AnnotationSubs. (1) (b) and (2) are related. The first is a required provision in the policy. The 2nd is a rule of law. It is preferable not to go too far in inserting excuses into the policy. Sub. (1) (b) encourages the insured not to give up automatically if notice is not timely given, but insertion of sub. (2) into the policy would arguably encourage an unduly long delay that might prejudice both parties. [Bill 146-S]
632.26 AnnotationWhen the insurer denied coverage within the time that the insured could have submitted the insured’s proofs in response to the insurer’s request for more information, the insurer waived the defense of lack of notice. Ehlers v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co., 81 Wis. 2d 64, 259 N.W.2d 718 (1977).
632.26 AnnotationThe failure of policyholders to give notice to an underinsurer of a settlement between the insured and the tortfeasor does 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.
632.26 AnnotationWisconsin’s notice-prejudice statutes, this section and s. 631.81, 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Melissa Anderson v. Thomas Aul, 2015 WI 19 (Wis. 2015).
Melissa Anderson v. Thomas Aul, 2015 WI 19 (Wis. 2015). “2013AP500 ¶47 Second is Wis. Stat. § 632.26 , which applies to "every liability insurance policy" delivered in this state31 and provides that an insured's failure to give any notice required by the policy will not preclude coverage if it was not reasonably possible to give the…”
Neff v. Pierzina, 2001 WI 95 (Wis. 2001). “Second, under Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (l)(b), the insured may show that (1) it was not reasonably possible to give the notice within the prescribed time and (2) notice was given as soon as reasonably possible.”
Kontowicz v. Am. Stand. Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2006 WI 48 (Wis. 2006). “See also, Wis. Stat. § 632.26 . [5] The court of appeals has provided an explanation why some third party claimants qualify under Wis.”
Ranes v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 580 N.W.2d 197 (Wis. 1998). “See Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (2) (notice required under a liability policy); 7 Wis.”
Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Bradley Corp., 2003 WI 33 (Wis. 2003). “2d 177 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (2) (2001-02) (failure to give notice "does not bar liability under the policy if the insurer was not prejudiced by the failure, but the risk of nonpersuasion is upon the person claiming there was no prejudice").”
City of Edgerton v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 493 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “, like sec. 632.26(2), Stats., is "concerned with determining who wins when the totality of evidence is inconclusive .”
The Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., & the Salt Lake City Corp., 165 F.3d 1087 (7th Cir. 1999). “According to Wis. Stat. § 632.26 : (1) Every liability insurance policy shall provide: (b) That failure to give any notice required by the policy within the time specified does not invalidate a claim made by the insured if the insured shows that it was not reasonably possible to…”
Kreckel v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 2006 WI App 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “" Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (l)(b). ¶ 13. We turn to Walbridge's primary argument that timely notice was indeed given to CNA.”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Wausau Chem. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “Wis.Stat. § 632.26(2). In such a case, “the risk of nonpersuasion is upon the person claiming there was no prejudice.”
Bradley Corp. v. Zurich Ins., 984 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “” It thus does not meet all of the required elements of section 631.”
Edwards v. Briggs & Stratton Ret. Plan, 639 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2011). “” Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (l)(b). The statute provides further that “[f]ailure to give notice as required by the policy .”
Leverence v. United States Fid. & Guar., 462 N.W.2d 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “2 Section 632.26, Stats., modifies the notice requirement to provide that notice be given as soon as reasonably possible and that failure of notice does not bar liability under the policy if the insurer was not prejudiced.”
— Wis. Stat. § 632.26(1)(a) — 1 case
Berna-Mork v. Jones, 496 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wis. Stat. § 632.26(2) — 10 cases
City of Edgerton v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 493 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “, like sec. 632.26(2), Stats., is "concerned with determining who wins when the totality of evidence is inconclusive .”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Wausau Chem. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “Wis.Stat. § 632.26(2). In such a case, “the risk of nonpersuasion is upon the person claiming there was no prejudice.”
Bradley Corp. v. Zurich Ins., 984 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “” It thus does not meet all of the required elements of section 631.”
Neff v. Pierzina, 2001 WI 95 (Wis. 2001). “Second, under Wis. Stat. § 632.26 (l)(b), the insured may show that (1) it was not reasonably possible to give the notice within the prescribed time and (2) notice was given as soon as reasonably possible.”
Anderson v. Aul, 2014 WI App 30 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wis. Stat. § 632.26(l)(b) — 1 case
Anderson v. Aul, 2014 WI App 30 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
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.