Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 803.04 (2026)
Permissive joinder of parties
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
803.04(1)(1) Permissive joinder. All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.
803.04(2)(a)(a) In any action for damages caused by negligence, any insurer which has an interest in the outcome of such controversy adverse to the plaintiff or any of the parties to such controversy, or which by its policy of insurance assumes or reserves the right to control the prosecution, defense or settlement of the claim or action, or which by its policy agrees to prosecute or defend the action brought by plaintiff or any of the parties to such action, or agrees to engage counsel to prosecute or defend said action or agrees to pay the costs of such litigation, is by this section made a proper party defendant in any action brought by plaintiff in this state on account of any claim against the insured. If the policy of insurance was issued or delivered outside this state, the insurer is by this paragraph made a proper party defendant only if the accident, injury or negligence occurred in this state.
803.04(2)(b)(b) If an insurer is made a party defendant pursuant to this section and it appears at any time before or during the trial that there is or may be a cross issue between the insurer and the insured or any issue between any other person and the insurer involving the question of the insurer’s liability if judgment should be rendered against the insured, the court may, upon motion of any defendant in the action, cause the person who may be liable upon such cross issue to be made a party defendant to the action and all the issues involved in the controversy determined in the trial of the action or any 3rd party may be impleaded as provided in s. 803.05. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as prohibiting the trial court from directing and conducting separate trials on the issue of liability to the plaintiff or other party seeking affirmative relief and on the issue of whether the insurance policy in question affords coverage. Any party may move for such separate trials and if the court orders separate trials it shall specify in its order the sequence in which such trials shall be conducted.
803.04(3)(3) Actions affecting marital property. In an action affecting the interest of a spouse in marital property, as defined under ch. 766, a spouse who is not a real party in interest or a party described under s. 803.03 may join in or be joined in the action.
803.04(4)(4) Separate trials. The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party, and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.
803.04 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 775.10 providing that the state may be made a party in an action to quiet title to land.
803.04 AnnotationIn an action for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of three separate surgical procedures performed by two unassociated doctors residing in different counties, separate places of trial were required and joinder of separate causes of action was improper. Voight v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 80 Wis. 2d 376, 259 N.W.2d 85 (1977).
803.04 AnnotationWhen an insurer made a good-faith request for a bifurcated trial under sub. (2) (b) on the issue of coverage, the trial court erred in finding that the insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to settle. Mowry v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co., 129 Wis. 2d 496, 385 N.W.2d 171 (1986).
803.04 AnnotationThat a policy is one of indemnity rather than liability does not prevent direct action against the insurer. Decade’s Monthly Income & Appreciation Fund v. Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., 173 Wis. 2d 665, 495 N.W.2d 335 (1993).
803.04 AnnotationJoinder of one tortfeasor who causes an injury and a successive tortfeasor who aggravates the injury is permitted by this section. Kluth v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 178 Wis. 2d 808, 505 N.W.2d 442 (Ct. App. 1993).
803.04 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.
803.04 AnnotationIf the issue of insurance coverage involves a party not a party to the underlying lawsuit, coverage may be determined by either a bifurcated trial or a separate declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff and any other party asserting a claim in the underlying suit must be named, and consolidation with the underlying action may be required. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Basten, 202 Wis. 2d 74, 549 N.W.2d 690 (1996), 94-3377.
803.04 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).
803.04 AnnotationIn order to join an insurer under sub. (2) (a), the accident must have occurred in this state or the policy must have been issued or delivered in the state. Utz v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 619 F.2d 7 (1980).
803.04 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) is limited to negligence claims, which do not include implied warranty claims. Rich Products Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 293 F.3d 981 (2002).
803.04 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).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Mowry v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 385 N.W.2d 171 (Wis. 1986).
Mowry v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 385 N.W.2d 171 (Wis. 1986). “See, sec. 803.04(2)(b), Stats. The California approach is unrealistic if only to the extent that an insurer's belief that an insurance policy does or does not *515 provide coverage must necessarily "affect a decision as to whether the settlement offer in question is a reasonable…”
Prosser v. Leuck, 592 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. 1999). “1993) to assert that Prosser is not entitled to double costs or interest from an insurer who declines a settlement offer and then, after learning new facts, tenders its policy limits as long as the insurer is not negligent in investigating the facts and the new facts are…”
Casper v. Am. Int'l South Ins., 2011 WI 81 (Wis. 2011). “National Union remained a party to the action, however, under Wis. Stat. § 803.04 (2). ¶ 24. The Caspers appealed both orders.”
Hennekens v. Hoerl, 465 N.W.2d 812 (Wis. 1991). “[19] Hennekens could have made the defendants parties to the declaratory judgment action under sec. 803.04(1), Stats., by alleging in the alternative that either he is not liable on the promissory *167 note or that, if he is liable on the note, the defendants are liable to him…”
Fire Ins. Exch. v. Basten, 549 N.W.2d 690 (Wis. 1996). “04 1 (1993-94) 2 , rather than pursuing resolution of the coverage dispute through intervention in *78 the underlying action to which its insured is a party defendant? We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that intervention in the underlying lawsuit followed by a request for…”
Kluth v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 505 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “This appeal from a nonfinal order dismissing defense motions for separate trials requires us to decide the scope of the permissive joinder statute, sec. 803.04, Stats., involving two different car accidents.”
Kenison v. Wellington Ins., 582 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The procedural portion, § 803.04, Stats., is entitled "Permissive joinder of parties," and provides in pertinent part: (2) Negligence actions: insurers, (a) In any action for damages caused by negligence, any insurer which has an interest in the outcome of such controversy…”
Decade's Monthly Income & Appreciation Fund Ex Rel. Keierleber v. Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., 495 N.W.2d 335 (Wis. 1993). “11, predecessor to sec. 803.04, Stats. In support of this proposition, Decade's cites this court's 1930 decision in Bergstein v.”
Leverence v. United States Fid. & Guar., 462 N.W.2d 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “21 A plaintiff or defendant need *95 not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the reliefs demanded.”
Kranzush v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 307 N.W.2d 256 (Wis. 1981). “The Wisconsin direct action statute, sec. 803.04(2), Stats. 1979-80, financial responsibility laws, ch.”
State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88 (Wis. 2010). “Blinka, Wisconsin Practice Series: Wisconsin Evidence, § 803.04 at 754-58 (3d ed.2008) (discussing Wis.”
Carlson v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 89 N.E.3d 490 (2017). “Wis. Stat. § 803.04 [2][a] ["If the policy of insurance was issued or delivered outside this state, the insurer is .”
— Wis. Stat. § 803.04(1) — 8 cases
Hennekens v. Hoerl, 465 N.W.2d 812 (Wis. 1991). “[19] Hennekens could have made the defendants parties to the declaratory judgment action under sec. 803.04(1), Stats., by alleging in the alternative that either he is not liable on the promissory *167 note or that, if he is liable on the note, the defendants are liable to him…”
Kluth v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 505 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “This appeal from a nonfinal order dismissing defense motions for separate trials requires us to decide the scope of the permissive joinder statute, sec. 803.04, Stats., involving two different car accidents.”
Leverence v. United States Fid. & Guar., 462 N.W.2d 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “21 A plaintiff or defendant need *95 not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the reliefs demanded.”
City of Racine v. Waste Facility Siting Bd., 575 N.W.2d 712 (Wis. 1998).
S.D.S. v. Rock Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 448 N.W.2d 282 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 803.04(2) — 19 cases
Casper v. Am. Int'l South Ins., 2011 WI 81 (Wis. 2011). “National Union remained a party to the action, however, under Wis. Stat. § 803.04 (2). ¶ 24. The Caspers appealed both orders.”
Kranzush v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 307 N.W.2d 256 (Wis. 1981). “The Wisconsin direct action statute, sec. 803.04(2), Stats. 1979-80, financial responsibility laws, ch.”
Davis v. Furlong, 328 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 1983).
Barber v. Nylund, 461 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Vandervest v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., 936 F. Supp. 601 (E.D. Wis. 1996).
— Wis. Stat. § 803.04(2)(a) — 11 cases
Kenison v. Wellington Ins., 582 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The procedural portion, § 803.04, Stats., is entitled "Permissive joinder of parties," and provides in pertinent part: (2) Negligence actions: insurers, (a) In any action for damages caused by negligence, any insurer which has an interest in the outcome of such controversy…”
Decade's Monthly Income & Appreciation Fund Ex Rel. Keierleber v. Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., 495 N.W.2d 335 (Wis. 1993). “11, predecessor to sec. 803.04, Stats. In support of this proposition, Decade's cites this court's 1930 decision in Bergstein v.”
Uebelacker v. Horace Mann Ins., 500 F. Supp. 180 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Decade's Monthly Income & Appreciation Fund v. Hirschboeck, 474 N.W.2d 766 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
Casper v. Am. Int'l South Ins., 2010 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wis. Stat. § 803.04(2)(b) — 15 cases
Mowry v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 385 N.W.2d 171 (Wis. 1986). “See, sec. 803.04(2)(b), Stats. The California approach is unrealistic if only to the extent that an insurer's belief that an insurance policy does or does not *515 provide coverage must necessarily "affect a decision as to whether the settlement offer in question is a reasonable…”
Prosser v. Leuck, 592 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. 1999). “1993) to assert that Prosser is not entitled to double costs or interest from an insurer who declines a settlement offer and then, after learning new facts, tenders its policy limits as long as the insurer is not negligent in investigating the facts and the new facts are…”
Grube v. Daun, 496 N.W.2d 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Fire Ins. Exch. v. Basten, 549 N.W.2d 690 (Wis. 1996). “04 1 (1993-94) 2 , rather than pursuing resolution of the coverage dispute through intervention in *78 the underlying action to which its insured is a party defendant? We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that intervention in the underlying lawsuit followed by a request for…”
Brethorst v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins., 2011 WI 41 (Wis. 2011).
— Wis. Stat. § 803.04(4) — 5 cases
Hennekens v. Hoerl, 465 N.W.2d 812 (Wis. 1991). “[19] Hennekens could have made the defendants parties to the declaratory judgment action under sec. 803.04(1), Stats., by alleging in the alternative that either he is not liable on the promissory *167 note or that, if he is liable on the note, the defendants are liable to him…”
Kluth v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 505 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “This appeal from a nonfinal order dismissing defense motions for separate trials requires us to decide the scope of the permissive joinder statute, sec. 803.04, Stats., involving two different car accidents.”
Leverence v. PFS CORP., 532 N.W.2d 735 (Wis. 1995).
Heikkinen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2006 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
Heikkinen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2006 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
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.