Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.285 (2026)
Settlement and advance payment of claim for damages
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.285(1)(a)(a) A settlement with or any payment made to an injured person, or to another on behalf of any injured person, or any person entitled to recover damages on account of injury or death of such person; or
885.285(1)(b)(b) A settlement with or any payment made to a person or on the person’s behalf to another for injury to or destruction of property.
885.285(2)(2) Any settlement or payment under sub. (1) is not admissible in any legal action unless pleaded as a defense.
885.285(3)(3) Any settlement or advance payment under sub. (1) shall be credited against any final settlement or judgment between the parties. Upon motion to the court in the absence of the jury and on submission of proper proof prior to entry of judgment on a verdict, the court shall apply the provisions of s. 895.045 and then shall reduce the amount of the damages so determined by the amount of the payments made. Any rights of contribution between joint tort-feasors shall be determined on the amount of the verdict prior to reduction because of a settlement or advance payment.
885.285(4)(4) The period fixed for the limitation for the commencement of actions shall be as provided by s. 893.12.
885.285 AnnotationA property payment under sub. (1) extends the limitation under s. 893.12, but only if made within the three-year limit of s. 893.54 (1). Abraham v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co., 115 Wis. 2d 678, 341 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1983).
885.285 AnnotationTo be a payment under this section that will toll or extend the statute of limitations, the payment must be related to fault or liability. Gurney v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 188 Wis. 2d 68, 523 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1994).
885.285 AnnotationThe waiver by the defendant medical provider in a medical malpractice action of the copayment portion of the amount due for the plaintiff’s medical treatment did not constitute a payment under this section or s. 893.12. Young v. Aurora Medical Center of Washington County, Inc., 2004 WI App 71, 272 Wis. 2d 300, 679 N.W.2d 549, 03-0224.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Riley v. Doe, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
Riley v. Doe, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “) The legislature intended that sec. 885.285 apply to a settlement or advance payment between parties.”
Abraham v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 341 N.W.2d 414 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “, only if the payment made under sec. 885.285, Stats., is of the same type as the claim to be extended, i.”
Est. of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2012 WI 70 (Wis. 2012). “The remaining amount from the settlement fund, approximately $1 million, was paid to the Kriefalls on behalf of Sizzler as an advance payment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 885.285 (2009-10). 6 ¶ 9. After all of the plaintiffs' claims were settled, Excel, Sizzler, E&B and their…”
Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 541 N.W.2d 824 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “We rejected Thimm's contention that §§ 885.285 and 893.12, STATS., [12] interacted with § 893.”
H.A. Freitag & Son, Inc. v. Bush, 447 N.W.2d 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “Section 885.285 refers to settlement and advanced payments made for damage claims.”
Scott Ex Rel. Ricciardi v. First State Ins. Co., 456 N.W.2d 152 (Wis. 1990). “8 Section 885.285, Stats., provides, in part: (1) No admission of liability shall be inferred from the following: (a) A settlement with or any payment made to an injured person, or to another on behalf of any injured person, or any person entitled to recover damages on account…”
Thimm v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of Am., 434 N.W.2d 842 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Thimm argues that sec. 885.285, Stats., 4 and sec. 893.12, Stats.”
Michaels Ex Rel. Est. of Michaels v. Mr. Heater, Inc., 411 F. Supp. 2d 992 (W.D. Wis. 2006). “Under Wisconsin law, if defendants are found to have been “causally negligent,” they may remain liable to plaintiff for damages, notwithstanding any set-off authorized by Wis. Stat. § 885.285 (3) (directing court, upon proper request, to “reduce the amount of the damages so…”
Wieting Funeral Home of Chilton, Inc. v. Meridian Mut. Ins., 2004 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “(4) The period fixed for the limitation for the commencement of actions shall be as provided by s.”
Young v. Aurora Med. Ctr. of Washington Cnty., Inc., 2004 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The Youngs contend that Aurora's waiver of the Youngs' co-pay portion of the amount due for Theresa's surgery and related post-surgical treatment constituted a "payment" on their claim within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 885.285 and 893.12 (quoted at footnote 3).”
Est. of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2011 WI App 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “§ 885.285 provides: (1) No admission of liability shall be inferred from the following: (a) A settlement with or any payment made to an injured person, or to another on behalf of any injured person, or any person entitled to recover damages on account of injury or death of such…”
City of New Berlin v. Wertz, 314 N.W.2d 911 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “In ruling on admissibility of breathalyzer test results, trial courts must also consider whether there has been compliance with the time limitation and/or the requirement of expert testimony under sec. 885.285(1), Stats. 9 In the instant case, Wertz does not challenge the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(1) — 5 cases
Abraham v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 341 N.W.2d 414 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “, only if the payment made under sec. 885.285, Stats., is of the same type as the claim to be extended, i.”
Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 541 N.W.2d 824 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “We rejected Thimm's contention that §§ 885.285 and 893.12, STATS., [12] interacted with § 893.”
City of New Berlin v. Wertz, 314 N.W.2d 911 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “In ruling on admissibility of breathalyzer test results, trial courts must also consider whether there has been compliance with the time limitation and/or the requirement of expert testimony under sec. 885.285(1), Stats. 9 In the instant case, Wertz does not challenge the…”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield United v. Heritage Mut. Ins., 523 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Gurney v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 523 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(1)(a) — 1 case
Young v. Aurora Med. Ctr. of Washington Cnty., 2004 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(3) — 5 cases
Riley v. Doe, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “) The legislature intended that sec. 885.285 apply to a settlement or advance payment between parties.”
Milwaukee Mut. Ins. v. Priewe, 348 N.W.2d 585 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
Blue Cross & Blue Shield United v. Heritage Mut. Ins., 523 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Est. of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co., 2026 WI 12 (Wis. 2026).
Gurney v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 523 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(4) — 2 cases
Riley v. Doe, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “) The legislature intended that sec. 885.285 apply to a settlement or advance payment between parties.”
Scott v. First State Ins., 444 N.W.2d 405 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(l)(a) — 1 case
Young v. Aurora Med. Ctr. of Washington Cnty., Inc., 2004 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The Youngs contend that Aurora's waiver of the Youngs' co-pay portion of the amount due for Theresa's surgery and related post-surgical treatment constituted a "payment" on their claim within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 885.285 and 893.12 (quoted at footnote 3).”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.285(l)(b) — 1 case
Riley v. Doe, 449 N.W.2d 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “) The legislature intended that sec. 885.285 apply to a settlement or advance payment between parties.”
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.