Wis. Stat. § 893.43

Section 893.43 does not apply to a duty to repair that arises from the relationship between an easement holder and a landowner rather than from a contract.

Shanak v. City of Waupaca · filed 1994-05-19

The City moved for summary judgment based on § 893.43, STATS. ... We are satisfied that it does not apply. ... It therefore owes a duty to Shanaks to keep the arch repaired, but the duty is not contractual. The duty arises out of the relationship between the parties as easement holder and landowner, respectively.

Section 893.43 provides a six-year limitations period for actions upon a contract, obligation, or liability.

Terranova v. Terranova · filed 1995-04-12

Both are claims for indemnification under the written separation agreement, and both are timely under the applicable six-year Wisconsin statute of limitations for actions “upon any contract, obligation or liability.” Wis. Stat. § 893.43. Because the separation agreement containing the indemnification provisions was executed on August 3, 1988, fewer than six years before the date this suit was commenced, plaintiffs’ indemnification claims are timely, irrespective of when their claims began to accrue.

Section 893.43 provides a general six-year limitation for contract actions, but the more specific deadline in § 806.06(4) governs recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the underlying lawsuit.

Purdy v. Cap Gemini America, Inc. · filed 2001-10-04

We conclude, as well, that policy considerations underlying Wis. Stat. § 806.06(4) support its application here in preference to the general, six-year limitation for contract actions under Wis. Stat. § 893.43.

Section 893.43 bars an action on a contract, obligation, or liability unless it is commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Kurt Van Engel Comm'n Co., Inc. v. Zingale · filed 2005-03-22

In summary, we conclude that because the Pledge Agreement does not contain a new and unqualified promise to pay the Note, the Pledge Agreement did not extend the original statute of limitations. The statute of limitations on the Note expired in March 1998. Because this action was filed after that date, it is barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.43.

Section 893.43 imposes a six-year limitations period on contract actions beginning when the cause of action accrues; it does not govern a claim to modify recorded easements, and a contingent reimbursement obligation does not accrue until the triggering event occurs.

Mnuk v. Harmony Homes, Inc. · filed 2010-07-29

Even if we assume the construction provisions are distinct from the easements, arise under contract, and are therefore subject to the six-year statute of limitations — as Harmony Homes contends — the undisputed facts show that a breach did not occur in July 1998. ... Accordingly, no cause of action for a breach has accrued. ... We conclude that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, Wis. Stat. § 893.43, does not govern the Mnuks' claim for a modification of the easements described in the easement access agreements. We also conclude that, assuming the construction provisions in those agreements are governed by § 893.43, the six years has not yet begun to run.

Wis. Stat. § 893.43 subjects claims sounding in contract and quasi-contract, including unjust enrichment, to a six-year statute of limitations.

Abdou v. Walker · filed 2021-06-28

Accordingly, Wisconsin substantive law applies to the contract and unjust enrichment claims. Under such law, claims sounding in contract and quasi-contract (such as unjust enrichment) are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See Wis. Stat. § 893.43; Stapel v. Stapel, No. 09 AP 1195, 2010 WL 2757237, at *6 (Wis. Ct. App. July 14, 2010) (“As a claim based on quasi-contract, a claim for unjust enrichment is subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.43.”).

Section 893.43(1) gives contract claims a six-year limitations period that accrues at breach; for a continuing duty, each partial breach can accrue separately, while an indemnity claim accrues when the covered loss is determined.

City Gas Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company · filed 2024-05-30(1)

Given the nature of the duties Hartford owed City Gas under the CGL policies City Gas purchased, the court concludes that the action is not barred by Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations. The duty to defend, as noted above, is a continuing duty; it continues as long as the litigation or other proceedings that seek to impose liability on the insured continues. ... And, of course, the statute of limitations would not have begun to run on Hartford’s breach of its duty to indemnify City Gas for its liability for the remediation costs, property damage, or other loss covered by the policies until the amount of that loss is determined. Because the record does not disclose whether that determination has yet been made, the court is unable to say that the statute of limitations on City Gas’ claims against Hartford has run.

Section 893.43 imposes a six-year limitation period on contract actions, and the court applied it to bar Kalahari's contract-damages claim.

Kalahari Development, LLC v. Iconica, Inc. · filed 2012-02-23

Subsection (3) (a) directs us to look for the "statute of limitations applicable to the damages" sought by Kalahari, and that statute of limitations is Wis. Stat. § 893.43. Because § 893.43 imposes a six-year time limit and that time passed, in the words of subsection (3)(a), "before the end of [§ 893.89's ten-year] exposure period," Kalahari's contract action is time-barred.

Section 893.43 is a general statute of limitations for contract actions and does not displace a more specific limitations period governing open-end credit plans.

Patzka v. Viterbo College · filed 1996-02-27

However, it is well established that when two statutes conflict, the more specific statute will apply over the general statute. ... Because Wis.Stat. § 425.307(1) applies specifically to open-end credit plans, whereas Wis. Stat. § 893.43 applies generally to contract actions, the two-year statute of limitations applies to plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 893.43 provides a six-year limitations period for contract actions, but it does not govern these HIPA and negligence claims, which accrue under the discovery rule.

Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc. · filed 2008-03-28

On review, Weisflog and WSGI argue that the Stuarts' HIPA claims and their negligence claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.43, which is applicable to contract actions, under the premise that the Stuarts' claims actually were claims based on the breach of both contracts. ... We are satisfied that none of the Stuarts' claims are barred by a statute of limitations. The Stuarts' HIPA claims and their negligence claims are governed by the discovery rule.

Section 893.43 gives unjust-enrichment claims a six-year limitations period, accruing when the underlying contract is breached regardless of whether the injured party knew or should have known of the breach.

Naparala v. Pella Corp. · filed 2015-05-19

Under Wisconsin law, claims for unjust enrichment are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Wis. Stat. § 893.43; ... Under § 893.43, a “cause of action accrues at the moment the contract is breached, regardless of whether the injured party knew or should have known that the breach occurred.”

Section 893.43's six-year limitations period for actions upon a contract does not apply to claims seeking rescission.

CMFG Life Insurance Company v. RBS Securities, Incorporated · filed 2015-08-21

Based on this authority, we predict that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would hold that rescission is not an “action upon the contract,” as that phrase is used in section 893.43.

Section 893.43 imposes a six-year limitations period on contract actions, running from the breach rather than its discovery.

Strohbehn v. Access Grp. Inc. · filed 2017-11-14

The applicable statute of limitations in Wisconsin is six years. ... She is entitled to summary judgment that she was in breach as of May 2007, and that any right to recover the debt expired in May 2013.

Section 893.43’s six-year contract limitations period does not bar a claim when equitable estoppel applies because the defendant’s fraudulent or wrongful concealment induced detrimental reliance.

Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foun · filed 2020-10-28

Equitable estoppel prevents a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations when it “has engaged in fraudulent or wrongful conduct, and the other side has relied on the conduct to its detriment.” ... We find no clear error. ... But even without that finding, WARF had a duty under the IIA “to communicate, in a timely manner, all material information concerning the [’815 patent] that is available to WARF and that is relevant to the licensing thereof.” Therefore we reject this contention as well, and will affirm the trial court’s holding on equitable estoppel.

Section 893.43(1) gives contract-based state-law claims a six-year limitations period that runs from breach, not discovery, and a continuing contractual duty can cause a new claim to accrue with each separate breach.

Eternix Ltd. v. CivilGEO, Inc. · filed 2025-04-23(1)

The state-law claims are all based in contract, so they have a six-year statute of limitations. Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1); Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 989 F.3d 513, 522 (7th Cir. 2021) (unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim and has the same statute of limitations as contract claims). The limitations period begins when the underlying contract was breached, not when the breach was discovered. CLL Assoc. Ltd. P’ship v. Arrowhead Pac. Corp., 174 Wis. 2d 604, 607 (1993). ... Similarly, the Blaze Terra license agreement imposed a continuing obligation not to sell or distribute Blaze Terra’s software. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Eternix, Maeder breached the license agreement each time he sold or distributed a product containing the software, so Eternix’s state-law claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 893.43 provides a six-year limitations period for contract actions and applies to breaches of a Wisconsin contract performed in Wisconsin.

Lakeview v. Care Realty, et al. · filed 2009-03-30

Wisconsin law, on the other hand, prescribes a six-year limitations period for actions in contract. Wis. Stat. § 893.43. ... Applying New Hampshire’s choice-of-law principles, and recognizing that the parties consciously provided in the Wisconsin Lease that its terms would be governed by Wisconsin law, it is appropriate to treat the two Leases separately for statute of limitations purposes. It would be unwise and unfair to impose New Hampshire’s three-year limitations period with respect to breaches of the Wisconsin lease. New Hampshire has no interest in what limitations period applies to a breach of a Wisconsin contract, performed in Wisconsin, and under which the parties have agreed to be bound by Wisconsin law. Wisconsin on the other hand, has a strong interest in enforcing its policy decisions. Therefore, THCI is entitled to recover breach of contract damages for Additional Rent due and owing, but only during the three-year period extending back from the date of filing its counterclaim with respect to the New Hampshire Lease, and extending six years back with respect to the Wisconsin Lease, and from filing of the counterclaim to the present.

Section 893.43's six-year contract limitation period runs from when each pension installment is due, so an action may be brought within six years of any partial breach.

Policemen's Annuity & Benefit v. City of Milw. · filed 2001-04-17

In the context of a continuing right to receive a periodic payment due under a pension, "the statute of limitations runs from the time when an installment is due under the pension."

Section 893.43(1) supplies a six-year limitations period for contract actions on promissory notes; an enforcement claim was timely where the note’s amended maturity date left the period open and the amendment related back.

Tissue Tech. LLC v. TAK Invs. LLC · filed 2018-03-19(1)

I conclude that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 893.43 provides a six-year limitations period for an action upon a contract, including this contract-based unconscionability claim.

Dairyland Power Cooperative v. Amax Inc. · filed 1986-05-09

Under the express language of UCC § 2-302, unconscionability of a contract is determined at the time the contract is made, not at some later time: ... This contract was entered into in 1974. The complaint was filed in 1984, nine years later. Plaintiff’s unconscionability claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations under Wis.Stat. § 893.43.

Section 893.43 gives a hospital six years to sue on a contract to collect fees for medical services.

Northwest General Hospital v. Yee · filed 1983-11-01

However, Northwest General Hospital has six years within which to bring an action upon the contract to collect fees for medical services rendered to Griffin.

Section 893.43 gives a claimant six years to bring a contract action when Wisconsin’s borrowing statute does not apply.

Abraham v. General Casualty Co. · filed 1998-04-17

Because Abraham's breach of contract claim is not a "foreign cause of action," the borrowing statute does not apply to his claim, and the timeliness of his action will be determined by Wisconsin's six-year period for commencing an action sounding in contract.

Section 893.43 requires actions to enforce contractual obligations to be brought within six years of the breach, regardless of when the breach is discovered.

Atkinson v. EVERBRITE. INC. · filed 1999-02-04

Section 893.43, Stats., provides that actions to enforce contractual obligations must be brought within six years of the breach of the obligation, regardless of when the breach is discovered.

Section 893.43’s six-year limit applies to a tribe’s claim based on its gaming compact with Wisconsin, whether the limit applies directly or through federal law.

Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2019-04-30

We cannot see a good reason why Wisconsin’s six-year period of limitations in contract law should not apply to suits based on this con- ... tract—and it does not matter whether the time limit applies because Wisconsin’s law is incorporated into federal law, after the fashion of Lampf, or because Wisconsin’s law ap- plies directly to a contract negotiated between the state and a resident tribe. Either way, the Community waited too long.

Section 893.43 provides a six-year limitations period that applies when a federal benefits claim is characterized as an action on a written contract.

Stovall v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. · filed 1985-11-19

Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s action is one in contract and is therefore subject to Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions. § 893.43 Wis.Stats. Because plaintiff brought this action within the required statutory period, it is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 893.43's six-year limitation period applies to a contractual claim for wages the employee would have earned after termination.

Lovett v. Mt. Senario College, Inc. · filed 1990-02-27

Given the clear language in Yanta, and the lack of any cases holding to the contrary, as well as the admonition that the two-year statute of limitations is to be narrowly construed to avoid extinguishing otherwise meritorious claims, see Lorenz v. Dreske, 62 Wis. 2d 273, 280-81, 214 N.W.2d 753, 757 (1974), we hold that the six-year statute of limitations applies to Lovett's contractual claim for wages he would have earned following his termination.

Section 893.43 gives an employee six years to sue to recover deductions from commissions based on sales results.

Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc. · filed 1994-03-03

Because the plaintiff seeks to recover amounts deducted from his commission, his action is subject to sec. 893.43, the six-year statute of limitations for contracts.

Section 893.43's six-year limitations period applies to unjust enrichment claims because they are quasi-contractual.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation · filed 2013-03-19

However, another appellate court has found that “[r]ecovery based on unjust enrichment is sometimes referred to as a quasi-contract. As a claim based on quasi-contract, a claim for unjust enrichment is subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.43,” Wisconsin’s statute of limitations for contractual suits. ... Having reviewed both these decisions, the Court finds Stapel more persuasive. ... In Boldt v. State, 101 Wis.2d 566, 305 N.W.2d 133 (1981), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that an unjust enrichment claim was quasi-contractual and that the six-year statute of limitations thus applied to such a claim. ... Given this authority, Lambo appears to have incorrectly applied Wisconsin law. The statute of limitations does apply to the Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, and the IPFAC’s failure to adequately plead the discovery rule bars the Plaintiffs from recovering damages on this claim that accrued prior to December 2, 2002.

Section 893.43’s six-year limitation for contract actions does not govern an independent action for child support arrearages brought after the child reaches majority.

Kroeger v. Kroeger · filed 1984-06-07

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by sec. 893.43, Stats., the six-year statute of limitation for an action on a contract. The issue is whether an independent action for child support arrearages, brought after the child reaches majority, is governed by the twenty-year limitation relating to judgments, the six-year limitation relating to contracts or the six-year limitation relating to other liabilities created by statute. We conclude that the action is governed by the twenty-year statute of limitation on judgments in effect in 1973 and therefore reverse.

Section 893.43’s six-year limit bars untimely claims for contractual rescission, including rescission based on mistake.

CMFG Life Insurance v. UBS Securities · filed 2014-07-02

Accordingly, the court concludes that this claim is, like the other rescission claims, barred by § 893.43 and will grant UBS’ motion to dismiss.

Under § 893.43, the six-year limitations period for unpaid pension benefits runs separately from the date each installment is due; repudiation alone does not start one period for all future payments.

Jensen v. Janesville Sand & Gravel Co. · filed 1987-09-17

Because the right to receive periodic payments under a pension is a continuing right, the statute of limitations runs from the time when an installment is due under the pension.

Section 893.43 gives a person six years to sue for each pension installment paid below the amount required by a written benefit contract.

Welter v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1997-10-28

Accordingly, the officers have six years to sue on any pension installment that was less than it should have been.

Section 893.43's six-year limitations period for contract actions begins, for an underinsured-motorist coverage claim, when the underlying tort claim is finally resolved.

Yocherer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2002-04-30

We do not construe the policy language cited by Farmers as requiring this action to be commenced on the date of the accident. The language does not specifically require the filing of a claim at the time of the accident. Further, the facts, as they were presented at the time of the accident, did not lend themselves to a presentable claim. An insured should not be required to proceed at the time of the accident under his or her underinsured motorist policy without any knowledge of the underlying tortfeasors' liability or coverage or the insured's own potential contributory negligence. For these reasons, we conclude that the cause of action in this case appropriately accrued on the date on which there was a presentable claim, which was the date of the settlement. ... In this case, the Yocherers are specifically seeking benefits under their underinsured motorist provision of their policy. Under this insurance provision, it must first be determined whether underinsured coverage even comes into play. To do this, it must be determined whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from the tortfeasor and whether the bodily injuries sustained by the insured arose out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the tortfeasor's vehicle. Then it must be determined whether the insurance of the tortfeasor is insufficient to cover the loss. Thus, the cause of action appropriately accrues at the time when there has been final resolution to the underlying tort claim. ... We hold that the date of loss for actions seeking coverage for underinsured motorist coverage is the date on which there has been a final resolution of the underlying claim with the tortfeasor, be it through denial of the claim, settlement, judgment, execution of releases, or other form of resolution.

Section 893.43 imposes a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims, running from the date the cause of action accrues.

Rinaldi v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2013-02-22

The Debtors advanced a claim against Wells Fargo for breach of contract. The statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years from the date the cause of action accrues. Wis. Stat. § 893.43. The allegations concerning Wells Fargo stem from the time of the origination or the assignment to HSBC in September 2005, and not some subsequent breach. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run either on June 10, 2005 (the date the Debtors executed the Note and Mortgage) or September 14, 2005, the date of the assignment. The Court concludes that the statute of limitations expired by September 14, 2011 fully a month prior to the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition.

Section 893.43(1) requires actions on contracts, obligations, or liabilities to be commenced within six years after accrual, and a qualifying partial payment made before expiration tolls the period and starts it running again.

Gemini Capital Group, LLC v. Jones · filed 2017-10-17(1)

The parties agree the applicable statute of limitations is Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1), which provides that an "action upon any contract, obligation, or liability. . . shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred." The parties further agree that "[a] partial payment on the contractual obligation made before the statute of limitations has run tolls the statute and sets it running from the date of payment." ... On appeal, we concluded Republic's October 31, 1972 payment to St. Mary's qualified as a partial payment on Tarkenton's debt and therefore tolled the six-year statute of limitations on St. Mary's claim. ... In this case, the record indicates that some type of insurance payment was applied to Jones' debt on July 29, 2009. ... Under these circumstances, we conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Jones consented to the July 29, 2009 payment being made on his behalf, such that the payment triggered operation of the partial payment doctrine and therefore tolled the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the circuit court erred by concluding, as a matter of law, that Gemini's claim against Jones was timely filed.

Section 893.43(1) gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year statute of limitations, including a subrogated claim when subrogation does not change the underlying cause of action.

Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company · filed 2019-01-25(1)

Because subrogation does not change the identity of the cause of action, Steadfast's claim against Greenwich is also for breach of contract. Claims for breach of contract have a six-year statute of limitations. Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1). Steadfast's action was filed less than six years after Greenwich's breach occurred, therefore, it was timely filed.

Section 893.43(1) gives contract-based claims a six-year limitations period, measured from the breach rather than its discovery, with each separate continuing breach accruing a new claim.

Eternix Ltd. v. CivilGEO, Inc. · filed 2024-06-05(1)

Eternix’s state common law claims are all based in contract, so they have a six-year statute of limitations. Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1); Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 989 F.3d 513, 522 (7th Cir. 2021) (unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract claim and has the same statute of limitations as contract claims). The limitations period begins when the underlying contract was breached, not when the breach was discovered. CLL Assoc. Ltd. P’ship v. Arrowhead Pac. Corp, 174 Wis. 2d 604, 607 (1993). Wisconsin applies a continuing violation rule for contract claims; that is, a new claim accrues for each separate breach. Segall v. Hurwitz, 114 Wis. 2d 471, 491 339 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1983). It would be premature to conclude that any of the state-law claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The conduct underlying each of Eternix’s state-law claims is defendants’ alleged violation of Eternix’s license agreement. Eternix’s amended complaint doesn’t allege when the defendants first violated the license agreement, so the court cannot conclude from the complaint that it was more than six years ago. And Eternix alleges that defendants continue to use Eternix’s software in violation of the license agreement, so at least some of the alleged conduct falls within the limitations period.

Section 893.43(1) gives a Wisconsin breach-of-contract claim a six-year statute of limitations measured from when the cause of action accrues.

West, Rufus v. Carr, Kevin · filed 2025-03-27(1)

The statute of limitations for a Wisconsin breach-of-contract claim is six years after the cause of action accrues. Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1). Because plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 5, 2017, the running of that limitations period is tolled from that date until the “final disposition” of his claim in this court. See Wis. Stat. § 893.15; see also Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71, 74 (2018) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) stops the clock on the state statute of limitations for a state law claim filed in federal court, tolling the limitations period for up to 30 days until after the claim is dismissed). As a result, plaintiff still has substantial time to pursue his claims in state court, should he choose to do so.

Section 893.43(1) imposes a six-year limitations period on quasi-contractual claims.

Smith v. RecordQuest LLC · filed 2021-02-26(1)

Accordingly, Wisconsin courts have applied § 893.43(1)’s six-year limitations period for contract-based claims to quasi-contractual claims. See Boldt v. State, 101 Wis. 2d 566, 578 (1981) (holding that “a claim based on quasi-contract … was subject to the six-year statute of limitations of [§ 893.43]”). We do the same here and hold that Smith timely made her unjust enrichment claim.

Section 893.43’s six-year period for contract actions begins when the contract is breached, even if the injured party has not discovered the breach.

CLL Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Arrowhead Pacific Corp. · filed 1993-03-23

We hold that under sec. 893.43, a contract cause of action accrues at the moment the contract is breached, regardless of whether the injured party knew or should have known that the breach occurred.

Section 893.43’s six-year period for contract actions begins when a cause of action accrues; an insurance policy’s expiration alone does not start the period for a claim under the policy.

Effert v. Heritage Mutual Insurance · filed 1990-12-28

The policy expiration precludes making claims for occurrences after the expiration date but does not affect the insured's right to pursue a claim against the insurer for fulfillment of the insurer's contractual obligations. The statute of limitations commences when a cause of action accrues. Section 893.43, Stats. A cause of action accrues when there is a claim capable of present enforcement.

Section 893.43(1)'s six-year contract statute of limitations does not apply to recovery of pension overpayments because the overpayment was not a breach of contract.

Couturier v. Pension Bd. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Milwaukee Cnty. · filed 2019-06-11(1)

Moreover, this court agrees with the analysis that, in this context, the overpayment was not a breach of contract.

Section 893.43 requires legal-malpractice, negligence, breach-of-contract, and misrepresentation claims to be brought within six years after the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

Rapp, Laura v. Laufers, Andrew · filed 2019-09-27

At the time of the events at issue in this lawsuit, plaintiff was required to bring claims of legal malpractice, negligence, breach of contract and misrepresentation within six years of the date on which she discovered her injury or should have discovered her injury with reasonable diligence. Wis. Stat. § 893.43 (vers. eff. to Feb. 6, 2016), § 893.53 (vers. eff. to Apr. 4, 2018); Stuart v. Weisflog’s Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22, ¶ 16, 308 Wis. 2d 103, 116, 746 N.W.2d 762, 768-69. ... As defendants point out, any alleged misrepresentation made on May 6, 2010 falls outside the six-year statute of limitations period. ... Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff’s misrepresentation claims are based on statements that Holmen made in May 2010, those claims must be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. ... Therefore, the statute of limitations has run on any malpractice claim involving activity before December 27, 2011.

Section 893.43(1) gives a subrogated breach-of-contract claim the same six-year limitations period as the underlying contract claim.

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. · filed 2019-01-25(1)

Wisconsin has a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. Wis. Stat. § 893.43(1) (2015-16).

A payment made by accepting and negotiating a tendered instrument tolls the contract statute of limitations even if the funds do not actually transfer and the debtor later cancels the payment.

Liberty Credit Services, Inc. v. Quinn · filed 2004-09-29

Quinn's subsequent cancellation of payment does not detract from the fact that, for purposes of extending the statute of limitations, a payment occurred on April 11, 2000.

For an attorney’s contract claim for unpaid litigation services, the six-year limitations period begins when the representation ends or the attorney is otherwise relieved, rather than when interim invoices go unpaid.

Cytophil, Inc. · filed 2026-06-12(1)

Wisconsin law provides that, subject to inapplicable exceptions, “an action upon any contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied, including an action to recover fees for professional services, . . . shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred.” Wis. Stat. §893.43(1). ... For the cause of action to accrue, Jansson had to be relieved of its continuing duty to represent Cytophil. That’s the accrual rule required by Lowe. ... Under Lowe, Jansson’s claim is not barred or limited by the applicable statute of limitations, Wis. Stat. §893.43(1), because Jansson’s claim for Cytophil’s breach of the engagement agreement did not “accrue” more than six years before the petition date.

Section 893.43 requires a contract action to be commenced within six years after accrual, and a Wisconsin contract claim accrues when the breach occurs rather than when the breach is discovered.

Peterson v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · filed 1999-04-06

Defendant’s cause of action for breach of contract would have accrued in 1988, when plaintiff applied for insurance. Defendant did not file its counterclaim until November 20, 1998, more than six years after the breach occurred and well outside the limitations period of the statute. See Wis.Stat. § 893.43 (actions under contract must be commenced within six years of accrual of action). Although many states recognize a “discovery” rule for breaches of contract just as they do for torts, Wisconsin is not one of them. In this state, a cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the breach occurs, even if the breach is unknown and unknowable to the other party to the contract. See CLL Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Arrowhead Pacific Corp., 174 Wis.2d 604, 611-13, 497 N.W.2d 115, 117-18 (1993).

Section 893.43's six-year limitation period is tolled by a partial payment made on the obligation before the period expires.

St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center v. Tarkenton · filed 1981-06-11

A partial payment on an obligation made prior to the running of the statute of limitations tolls the statute, and sets it running from the date of the payment.

A partial payment restarts § 893.43’s six-year limitations period; when several notes are treated as one debt, the payment restarts the period for each note.

Cornell University v. Roth · filed 1989-03-28

Because Cornell treated the notes as one debt, Roth’s payment was applied equally to each of the seven notes. Thus, the May 21, 1979 payment tolled the statute of limitations on each of the seven NDSL notes.

Section 893.43 supplies a six-year limitations period for ERISA benefit and notice claims when Wisconsin contract law provides the analogous state-law period.

Johnson v. Meriter Health Services Employee Retirement Plan · filed 2014-07-03

Defendants posit that the appropriate statute of limitations for § 204(h) claims is found in Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims, Wis. Stat. § 893.43. ... In any event, plaintiffs do not challenge the applicability of a six-year statute of limitations in their opposition brief, and the court finds its application to be reasonable.

Section 893.43’s six-year limitations period applies to unjust enrichment claims because they are based on quasi-contract.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lund, Richard · filed 2020-05-15

Alternatively, both defendants contend that the unjust enrichment claim is limited by the six-year limitations period in Wis. Stat. § 893.43, which applies to claims for breach of contract. ... So the court will follow Boldt and apply a six-year limitations period.