Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.52 (2026)
Action for damages for injury to property
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.52(1)(1) Except as provided in sub. (2) and in any other case where a different period is expressly prescribed, an action, not arising on contract, to recover damages for an injury to real or personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred.
893.52(2)(2) An action, not arising on contract, to recover damages for an injury to real or personal property that are caused or sustained by, or that arise from, an accident involving a motor vehicle shall be commenced within 3 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred.
893.52 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is based upon previous s. 893.19 (5) which is split into 2 separate provisions. See s. 893.53 for the other provision. [Bill 326-A]
893.52 AnnotationSection 893.19 (5) [now this section] applies to actions based on negligent construction of dwellings. The statute begins to run when the plaintiff suffers injury. Abramowski v. Wm. Kilps Sons Realty, Inc., 80 Wis. 2d 468, 259 N.W.2d 306 (1977).
893.52 AnnotationThe limitation period begins when evidence of resultant injury is sufficiently significant to alert the injured party to the possibility of a defect. Tallmadge v. Skyline Construction, Inc., 86 Wis. 2d 356, 272 N.W.2d 404 (Ct. App. 1978).
893.52 AnnotationIn actions for legal malpractice, the date of injury, rather than the date of the negligent act, commences the period of limitations. Auric v. Continental Casualty Co., 111 Wis. 2d 507, 331 N.W.2d 325 (1983).
893.52 AnnotationA cause of action accrues when the negligent act occurs, or the last in a continuum of negligent acts occur, and the plaintiff has a basis for objectively concluding that the defendant caused injuries and damages. Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co., 162 Wis. 2d 1, 469 N.W.2d 595 (1991).
893.52 AnnotationThis section permits parties to contract for lesser limitations periods and to specify the day the period begins to run, in which case the “discovery rule” does not apply. Keiting v. Skauge, 198 Wis. 2d 887, 543 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-2259.
893.52 AnnotationA claim for asbestos property damage accrues when the plaintiff is informed of the presence of asbestos and that precautions are necessary. Banc One Building Management Corp. v. W.R. Grace Co., 210 Wis. 2d 62, 565 N.W.2d 154 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-3193.
893.52 AnnotationIn the case of a claim for faulty workmanship, a builder’s representation can result in a justifiable delay in discovering the cause of an injury. Whether the plaintiff’s course of conduct is reasonable is a question of fact. Williams v. Kaerek Builders, Inc., 212 Wis. 2d 150, 568 N.W.2d 313 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2396.
893.52 AnnotationA plaintiff can rely on the discovery rule only if the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence. Jacobs v. Nor-Lake, Inc., 217 Wis. 2d 625, 579 N.W.2d 254 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1740.
893.52 AnnotationA party’s deficient performance of a contract does not give rise to a tort claim. There must be a duty independent of the contract for a cause of action in tort. Atkinson v. Everbrite, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 724, 592 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1806.
893.52 AnnotationThe accrual of a stray voltage claim is governed by the discovery rule. When the defendant utility went to the farm three times and found no problem, the plaintiff could not be faulted for accepting the results of the utility’s testing and continuing to search for other possible sources of the problem. Allen v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 2005 WI App 40, 279 Wis. 2d 488, 694 N.W.2d 420, 03-2690.
893.52 AnnotationSection 893.57, and not this section, applies to a claim alleging intentional trespass. Because the existence of damages for injury to real property is not necessary to maintain a claim for intentional trespass, sub. (1) cannot govern an intentional trespass claim. Munger v. Seehafer, 2016 WI App 89, 372 Wis. 2d 749, 890 N.W.2d 22, 14-2594.
893.52 AnnotationAn action for a permanent nuisance must be filed within the applicable statutes of limitations, but an action for a continuing nuisance may be maintained beyond the ordinary statutes of limitations. The appropriate factors to consider in deciding whether a nuisance is continuing are: 1) whether it constitutes an ongoing or repeated disturbance or harm; and 2) whether it can be discontinued or abated. If both factors are present, a nuisance is deemed to be continuing. In this case, claims for nuisance based on property damage that related to disrupted “views and vistas” accrued when wind turbines were erected, and those claims were for permanent nuisances, not continuing nuisances. Therefore, the claims were subject to sub. (1). Enz v. Duke Energy Renewable Services, Inc., 2023 WI App 24, 407 Wis. 2d 728, 991 N.W.2d 423, 21-0989.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Munger v. Seehafer, 2016 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).
Munger v. Seehafer, 2016 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “In response to motions to dismiss on timeliness grounds, Munger and the Association argued that the statute of limitations applicable to all their claims was the six-year statute governing injury to real property, Wis. Stat. § 893.52 . Alternatively, they argued that no statute…”
Zastrow v. Journal Commc'ns, Inc., 2006 WI 72 (Wis. 2006). “For breaches of duty based on negligent conduct, the circuit court reasoned that the six-year statute of limitations in either Wis. Stat. §§ 893.52 or 893.53 applied. The circuit court determined that the applicable moment at which to toll the statute of limitations was the date…”
Schmidt v. N. States Power Co., 2007 WI 136 (Wis. 2007). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.52 (2003-04). 2 The circuit court also concluded at summary judgment that the Schmidts' claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine.”
Gumz v. N. States Power Co., 2007 WI 135 (Wis. 2007). “Northern States moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Gumzs had not filed suit within the six-year period of limitations imposed by Wis. Stat. § 893.52 . [2] The circuit court denied the motion.”
Zastrow v. Journal Commc'ns, Inc., 2005 WI App 178 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “The court entered judgment in favor of four of those employees in an amount totaling $130,479.”
Auric v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 331 N.W.2d 325 (Wis. 1983). “1 The final issue is: When does the statute of limitations in sec. 893.52, Stats. 1979-80, 2 commence to run in an action by a will beneficiary against an attorney for negligently supervising the execution of a will ? We conclude that the beneficiary of a will may maintain an…”
Selzer v. Brunsell Bros., Ltd., 2002 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.52 ; Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc.”
P.V.N. Acharya v. Carroll, 448 N.W.2d 275 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court concluded that the issue is whether Acharya's case falls within sec. 893.52, Stats., or sec. 893.54. The court held that the three-year limitation in sec.”
Below v. Norton, 2008 WI 77 (Wis. 2008). “Wis. Stat. § 893.52 ; Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc.”
Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co., 453 N.W.2d 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “There is evidence to support the jury's determination of the time of discovery of the cause of action and because the Kolpins did not commence action within six years thereafter, their negligence claim is barred by sec. 893.52, Stats., which requires actions for damage to real…”
Gumz v. N. States Power Co., 2006 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “The court later denied Northern's motion for summary judgment based upon the six-year statute of limitations under Wis. Stat. § 893.52 . ¶ 8. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Northern causally negligent, that the Gumzes were not negligent, and that Northern…”
Andersen v. Vill. of Little Chute, 549 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “6 The Village contends that the trial court failed to apply the statute of limitations, either § 893.52, Stats., or § 893.93(l)(a), STATS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.52(1) — 6 cases
David Enz v. Duke Energy Renewable Servs., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Thomas Wascher v. Carved Stone Creations (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Lloyd A. Ebert v. Vill. of Gresham (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Christopher Hookstead v. Gary Beal (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Barko Hydraulics v. Peninsula Powder Coating, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021).
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.