Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 904 — EVIDENCE — RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 904.08 (2026)

Compromise and offers to compromise

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
904.08904.08 Compromise and offers to compromise. Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This section does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, proving accord and satisfaction, novation or release, or proving an effort to compromise or obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
904.08 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R90 (1973); 1987 a. 355; Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-03, 179 Wis. 2d xv (1993); 1993 a. 490.
904.08 AnnotationWhile this section does not exclude evidence of compromise settlements to prove bias or prejudice of witnesses, it does exclude evidence of details such as the amount of the settlement. Johnson v. Heintz, 73 Wis. 2d 286, 243 N.W.2d 815 (1976).
904.08 AnnotationThe plaintiff’s letter suggesting a compromise between codefendants was not admissible to prove the liability of a defendant. Production Credit Ass’n of Green Bay v. Rosner, 78 Wis. 2d 543, 255 N.W.2d 79 (1977).
904.08 AnnotationWhen a letter from a bank to the defendant was an unconditional demand for possession of collateral and payment under a lease and was prepared without prior negotiations, compromise, or agreement, the letter was not barred by this section. Heritage Bank of Milwaukee v. Packerland Packing Co., 82 Wis. 2d 225, 262 N.W.2d 109 (1978).
904.08 AnnotationBias or prejudice of a witness can be a permissible basis to admit settlement-related evidence. This can be satisfied by showing that a witness changed the witness’s testimony or that the posture of a settling party is significantly different as a result of the settlement. In this case, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined that witness bias was a significant risk in light of the dramatically altered posture of the case following settlement with two central tortfeasors, and the court admitted the fact of settlement into evidence and supported that limited admission with a cautionary and clarifying instruction to the jury. Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC, 2023 WI 43, 407 Wis. 2d 387, 991 N.W.2d 320, 20-0806.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC, 2023 WI 43 (Wis. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allsop Venture Partners III v. Murphy Desmond SC, 2023 WI 43 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 30× “3 This claim concerns the circuit court's application of Wis. Stat. § 904.08 (2021-22),4 which generally prohibits the admission of settlement evidence, yet permits its admission in narrow circumstances.”
Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2016 WI 52 (Wis. 2016). · cites it 11× “On three or four occasions, he and his wife, Suzy Accola, had purchased a completed home from Fontana and moved in with their three children.”
Est. of Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2006 WI App 248 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 13× “§ 904.08. Section 904.08 provides: Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not…”
Morden v. Cont'l AG, 2000 WI 51 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 9× “Continental maintains that Wis. Stat. § 904.08 should be read expansively to include the admission of settlement evidence for purposes other than those enumerated in the last sentence.”
Est. of Stanley G. Miller v. Diane Storey, 2017 WI 99 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 4× “" See Wis. Stat. § 904.08 . Rather, the settlement offer is relevant in this case to determine whether double costs are authorized under Wis.”
State v. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “§ 904.08 ("Compromise and offers to compromise"), in support of his argument.”
Olson v. Darlington Mut. Ins., 2006 WI App 204 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 904.08 (Evidence of the settlement of a claim is not admissible "to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Green Bay v. Rosner, 255 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. 1977). · cites it 4× “Such mere offer, not accepted by the parties, was inadmissible under the provisions of sec. 904.08, Stats. [16] Defendants' liability on the note was in no way affected by a suggestion for settlement not agreed to by the parties.”
Hareng v. Blanke, 279 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 2× “Sec. 904.08, Stats., “does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness.”
Aspen Servs., Inc. v. IT Corp., 583 N.W.2d 849 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “7 Aspen argues that it was improper for the trial court to rely on conduct in settlement discussions because § 904.08, Stats., bars the use of such discussions for liability purposes.”
Kiss v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2001 WI App 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 904.08 states that an offer to compromise is inadmissible in evidence to prove, among other things, that a party concedes liability or the amount of money due.”
Staskal v. Wausau Gen. Ins. Co., 2005 WI App 216 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “We disagree with Symons's contention that the court improperly treated the settlement agreement as evidence of the invalidity of the citation in violation of Wis. Stat. § 904.08 , which provides: Compromise and offers to compromise.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 904.08(2) — 1 case
Anderson Ex Rel. Skow v. Alfa-Laval Agri, Inc., 564 N.W.2d 788 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
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.