802.07 (6) repealed to limit the circumstances in which a responsive pleading to a claim for contribution is required. A claim for contribution is a claim for relief under sub. (1) which normally requires an answer, reply or third-party answer. The amendment to sub. (4), however, eliminates this requirement where the party from whom contribution is sought has already pleaded all denials and defenses to be relied upon in defending the contribution claim. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1982] It is the sufficiency of the facts alleged that controls the determination of whether a claim for relief is properly pled. The facts themselves, if they show an invasion of a protected right, constitute the cause of action. What they are called is immaterial. If the facts reveal an apparent right to recover under any legal theory, they are sufficient as a cause of action. Strid v. Converse, 111 Wis. 2d 418, 331 N.W.2d 350 (1983). See also Hubbard v. Neuman, 2024 WI App 22, 411 Wis. 2d 586, 5 N.W.3d 852, 23-0255. Sub. (2) does not authorize denials for lack of knowledge or information solely to obtain delay. An answer that does so is frivolous under former s. 814.025 (3) (b), 1985 stats. First Federated Savings Bank v. McDonah, 143 Wis. 2d 429, 422 N.W.2d 113 (Ct. App. 1988). Insurers must plead and prove their policy limits prior to a verdict in order to restrict the judgment to the policy limits. Price v. Hart, 166 Wis. 2d 182, 480 N.W.2d 249 (Ct. App. 1991). A claim for punitive damages on a tort claim is subject to sub. (1m) (a). A demand for a specific amount in violation of sub. (1m) (a) is a nullity. Apex Electronics Corp. v. Gee, 217 Wis. 2d 378, 577 N.W.2d 23 (1998), 97-0353. The effect of the court striking a defendant’s answer is that the defendant failed to deny the plaintiff’s allegations and, therefore, is deemed to have admitted them. An insured’s answers do not inure to an insurer’s benefit. Such a proposition is contrary to the direct action statute, s. 632.24. Estate of Otto v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 2007 WI App 192, 305 Wis. 2d 198, 738 N.W.2d 599, 06-1566. Affirmed. 2008 WI 78, 311 Wis. 2d 84, 751 N.W.2d 805, 06-1566. The plain language of sub. (3) indicates that affirmative defenses, except the ten enumerated defenses in s. 802.06 (2) (a), must be raised in a responsive pleading. Lentz, 195 Wis. 2d 457 (1995), is overruled because it allows a defendant to initially raise by motion an affirmative defense not listed in s. 802.06 (2). Maple Grove Country Club Inc. v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District, 2019 WI 43, 386 Wis. 2d 425, 926 N.W.2d 184, 16-2296. Data Key Partners, 2014 WI 86, did not create a new, heightened pleading standard in this state. That pleading standard is consistent with the pleading standard in Strid, 111 Wis. 2d 418 (1983). Cattau v. National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc., 2019 WI 46, 386 Wis. 2d 515, 926 N.W.2d 756, 16-0493. A complaint’s success does not depend on accurate labeling, but that does not mean a court may treat causes of action and remedies as if they are the same thing. A cause of action is distinguished from a remedy which is the means or method whereby the cause of action is effectuated. This distinction is important, especially at the summary judgment stage, because the court must determine whether the alleged facts comprise one or more causes of action. Tikalsky v. Friedman, 2019 WI 56, 386 Wis. 2d 757, 928 N.W.2d 502, 17-0170. Under sub. (5) (b), a party may plead claims for relief in the alternative. Claims pleaded in the alternative need not be consistent with one another. Nevertheless, a
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
2
plaintiff may recover under only one of those claims. If there is a contract between the parties, the plaintiff may recover in contract but not in equity. In this case, when a contract existed and the jury awarded damages for its breach, the plaintiff could not also collect damages for unjust enrichment based on the same underlying conduct or subject matter. Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank National Ass’n, 2021 WI 8, 395 Wis. 2d 421, 954 N.W.2d 339, 18-0071. Sub. (5) (b), which allows parties to plead inconsistent claims in the alternative, provides no cover to a party asserting misrepresentation claims in the alternative to its contract claims because, when the economic loss doctrine applies, it limits transacting parties to pursuing contractual remedies for economic losses, and precludes such parties from pursuing any tort claims that might otherwise be available but for the doctrine. Ripp Distributing Co. v. Ruby Distribution LLC, 2024 WI App 24, 411 Wis. 2d 630, 5 N.W.3d 930, 23-0778. Threshold Issues in State Court Civil Litigation. Hoffer. Wis. Law. Jan. 2019. What Is Wisconsin’s Pleading Standard? Nusslock. Wis. Law. Sept. 2019.