Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 632.34 (2026)
Defense of noncooperation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
632.34632.34 Defense of noncooperation. If a policy of automobile liability insurance provides a defense to the insurer for lack of cooperation on the part of the insured, the defense is not effective against a 3rd person making a claim against the insurer unless there was collusion between the 3rd person and the insured or unless the claimant was a passenger in or on the insured vehicle. If the defense is not effective against the claimant, after payment the insurer is subrogated to the injured person’s claim against the insured to the extent of the payment and is entitled to reimbursement by the insured.
632.34 AnnotationLegislative Council Note, 1979: This provision is continued from former s. 632.34 (8). It is changed from a required provision of the policy to a rule of law. It is not the kind of rule that needs to be put in the policy to inform the policyholder. Indeed, the policyholder should receive no encouragement to fail to cooperate. This is a relaxation of present law. [Bill 146-S]
632.34 AnnotationPrejudice is not a component of the defense of noncooperation. Schaefer v. Northern Assurance Co. of America, 182 Wis. 2d 148, 513 N.W.2d 615 (Ct. App. 1994).
632.34 AnnotationIn Schaefer, 182 Wis. 2d 148 (1994), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals confirmed that this section had abrogated the common-law requirement of prejudice in non-cooperation cases, but this was true only for cases involving automobiles, to which this section expressly applies. Welton Enterprises, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 131 F. Supp. 3d 827 (2015).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1977–2015 · leading case: Schaefer v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., 513 N.W.2d 615 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Schaefer v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., 513 N.W.2d 615 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In January 1992, Northern Assurance again moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schaefer had filed false pleadings and that the collusion between the insured and Schaefer should result in a discharge of Northern Assurance from any duty under the insurance contract, pursuant…”
Vicki L. Blasing v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 73 (Wis. 2014). “She also brought a direct action against Zurich, as is permitted by Wis. Stat. § 632.34 . Backus Elec., Inc. v.”
Rauch v. Am. Fam. Ins., 340 N.W.2d 478 (Wis. 1983). “Section 632.34 eliminates the insurer's defense of noncooperation against third parties unless there was collusion between the third party and the insured or unless the third party claimant was a passenger in the insured vehicle.”
Ehlers v. Colonial Penn Ins., 259 N.W.2d 718 (Wis. 1977). “375, §13, and substantially reenacted as sec. 632.34(4), Stats. (1975)) establish a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy.”
Hake v. Zimmerlee, 504 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “(1977), which made specific provisions mandatory in all automobile liability insurance issued or delivered in this state, and sec. 632.34(2), Stats. (1977), which prohibited certain exclusions from liability policies.”
Welton Enter., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins., 131 F. Supp. 3d 827 (W.D. Wis. 2015). “34 had abrogated the common-law requirement of prejudice in non-cooperation cases, but this was true only for cases involving automobiles, to which Wis. Stat. § 632.34 expressly applies. In contrast, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held as recently as 2012 that in the context of…”
— Wis. Stat. § 632.34(2) — 1 case
Hake v. Zimmerlee, 504 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “(1977), which made specific provisions mandatory in all automobile liability insurance issued or delivered in this state, and sec. 632.34(2), Stats. (1977), which prohibited certain exclusions from liability policies.”
— Wis. Stat. § 632.34(4) — 1 case
Ehlers v. Colonial Penn Ins., 259 N.W.2d 718 (Wis. 1977). “375, §13, and substantially reenacted as sec. 632.34(4), Stats. (1975)) establish a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy.”
— Wis. Stat. § 632.34(8) — 1 case
Schaefer v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., 513 N.W.2d 615 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In January 1992, Northern Assurance again moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schaefer had filed false pleadings and that the collusion between the insured and Schaefer should result in a discharge of Northern Assurance from any duty under the insurance contract, pursuant…”
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.