Wis. Stat. § 893.43
Wis. Stat. § 893.43
A bonus plan to compensate for increased profits is a contract. Younger v. Rosenow Paper & Supply Co., 51 Wis. 2d 619, 188 N.W.2d 507 (1971). An action to recover benefits under a pension plan is an action to enforce a contract, not an action for wages. Estate of Schroeder v. Gateway Transportation Co., 53 Wis. 2d 59, 191 N.W.2d 860 (1971). An action for personal injuries resulting from medical malpractice, although based on contract, is subject to the three-year limitation for injuries to the person. Estate of Kohls v. Brah, 57 Wis. 2d 141, 203 N.W.2d 666 (1973). An action by an insured against an insurance agent for failing to procure requested coverage is not an action against the insurer on the policy, but is an action resting upon the agent's contract with the insured to procure the insurance coverage agreed upon subject to the statute of limitations for contract. Estate of Ensz v. Brown Insurance Agency, Inc., 66 Wis. 2d 193, 223 N.W.2d 903 (1974). A cause of action for contribution is based upon a contract implied by law and must be brought within six years after one joint tortfeasor has paid more than his or her share. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Osborn Plumbing, 66 Wis. 2d 454, 225 N.W.2d 628 (1975). When an employer deducted a "hypothetical tax factor" from salaries of its overseas employees so as to equalize compensation of its employees worldwide, an action to recover amounts so deducted had to be brought within the limitation period on wage claims, and not the period on other contract claims. Sussmann v. Gleisner, 80 Wis. 2d 435, 259 N.W.2d 114 (1977). If the object of a disputed contract is the end product or fruit of human labor rather than the labor per se, s. 893.19(3) [now this section] applies rather than s. 893.21(5) [now s. 893.44]. Rupp v. O'Connor, 81 Wis. 2d 436, 261 N.W.2d 815 (1978). Partial payment of an obligation made prior to the running of the statute of limitations tolls the statute and sets it running from the date of payment. St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center v. Tarkenton, 103 Wis. 2d 422, 309 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1981). A breach of a roofing contract occurred when the faulty roof was completed, not when the building was completed. State v. Holland Plastics Co., 111 Wis. 2d 497, 331 N.W.2d 320 (1983). An unjust enrichment claim accrues when a cohabitational relationship terminates. The court does not determine what statute of limitations, if any, applies. Watts (Bischoff) v. Watts, 152 Wis. 2d 370, 448 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1989). A contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach. The discovery rule is inapplicable. CLL Associates v. Arrowhead Pacific, 174 Wis. 2d 604, 497 N.W.2d 115 (1993). This section applies to actions for the recovery of sales commissions. Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc., 181 Wis. 2d 736, 512 N.W.2d 487 (1994). A 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. For actions seeking coverage under an underinsured motorist policy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of loss, which is the date on which a final resolution is reached in the underlying claim against the tortfeasor, be it through denial of that claim, settlement, judgment, execution of releases, or other form of resolution, whichever is the latest. Yocherer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2002 WI 41, 252 Wis. 2d 114, 643 N.W.2d 457, 00-0944. The label of the documents here-"access easement agreement"-and the fact that each was signed by both parties did not transform the grants of easement into contracts subject to contract law. The plaintiffs alleged that a driveway could not be built on the easements described in the agreements because of a wetland delineation and sought a modification of the easements. This claim for relief was an action to enforce the recorded easements, albeit a modified version, and was therefore governed by s. 893.33(6), not the contract statute, this section. Mnuk v. Harmony Homes, Inc., 2010 WI App 102, 329 Wis. 2d 182, 790 N.W.2d 514, 09-1178. The running of the six-year statute of limitations under this section [now sub. (1)] that applies to enforcement of a note does not prevent timely foreclosure of the mortgage that secures the note. Bank of New York Mellon v. Klomsten, 2018 WI App 25, 381 Wis. 2d 218, 911 N.W.2d 364, 17-0405. The statute of limitations for a subrogated claim is the same as the statute of limitations that would apply to the claim if it had not been subrogated. In this case, the plaintiff insurance company was subrogated to the insured's contract claim that the defendant insurance company breached its duty to defend the insured. Because subrogation does not change the identity of the cause of action, the plaintiff's claim was also for breach of contract. Claims for breach of contract have a six-year statute of limitations under sub. (1). Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 2019 WI 6, 385 Wis. 2d 213, 922 N.W.2d 71, 16-1631. Rescission is not an "action upon the contract," as that phrase is used in this section. CMFG Life Insurance Co. v. RBS Securities, Inc., 799 F.3d 729 (2015). An unconscionability of contract claim is governed by this section. Dairyland Power Coop. v. Amax Inc., (1986).