Chapter 102

102.29(8m) (8m) No participant in a community service job under s. 49.147 (4) or a transitional placement under s. 49.147 (5) who, under s. 49.147 (4) (c) or (5) (c), is provided worker’s compensation coverage by a Wisconsin works agency, as defined under s. 49.001 (9), and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the community service job or transitional placement from which the claim arose.

102.29(8r) (8r) No participant in a food stamp employment and training program under s. 49.79 (9) who, under s. 49.79 (9) (a) 5., is provided worker’s compensation coverage by the department of health services or by a Wisconsin Works agency, as defined in s. 49.001 (9), or other provider under contract with the department of health services or a county department under s. 46.215, 46.22, or 46.23 or tribal governing body to administer the food stamp employment and training program and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the employment and training from which the claim arose.

102.29(9) (9) No participant in a work experience component of a job opportunities and basic skills program who, under s. 49.193 (6) (a), 1997 stats., was considered to be an employee of the agency administering that program, or who, under s. 49.193 (6) (a), 1997 stats., was provided worker’s compensation coverage by the person administering the work experience component, and who makes a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the employer who provided the work experience from which the claim arose. This subsection does not apply to injuries occurring after February 28, 1998.

102.29(10) (10) A practitioner who, under s. 257.03, is considered an employee of the state for purposes of worker’s compensation coverage while providing services on behalf of a health care facility, the department of health services, or a local health department during a state of emergency and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may not make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the health care facility, department, or local health department that accepted those services.

102.29(11) (11) No security officer employed by the department of military affairs who is deputed under s. 59.26 (4m), who remains an employee of the state for purposes of worker’s compensation coverage while conducting routine external security checks around military installations in this state, and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or bring an action in tort against the county in which the security officer is conducting routine external security checks or against the sheriff or undersheriff who deputed the security officer.

102.29(12) (12) No individual who is an employee of an entity described in s. 102.07 (20) for purposes of this chapter and who has the right to make a claim for compensation under this chapter may make a claim or maintain an action in tort against the person described in s. 102.07 (20) who received the services from which the claim arose.

102.29 History History: 1975 c. 147 ss. 24, 54; 1977 c. 195; 1979 c. 323 s. 33; 1981 c. 92; 1985 a. 83 s. 44; 1985 a. 332 s. 253; 1987 a. 179; 1989 a. 64; 1995 a. 117, 289; 1997 a. 38; 1999 a. 9, 14; 2001 a. 16, 37; 2003 a. 144; 2005 a. 96, 172, 253; 2007 a. 20 ss. 2645, 9121 (6) (a); 2007 a. 97, 185; 2009 a. 42, 154; 2011 a. 183; s. 2013 a. 165 s. 114; 2015 a. 55, 180; 2017 a. 139; 2021 a. 29; 2023 a. 213.

102.29 Note NOTE: See cases annotated under s. 102.03 as to the right to bring a third-party action against a coemployee.

102.29 Annotation In a third-party action [now under this section], safe place liability [now under s. 101.11] cannot be imposed on officers or employees of the employer. Their liability must be based on common law negligence. Pitrowski v. Taylor, 55 Wis. 2d 615, 201 N.W.2d 52 (1972).

102.29 Annotation Members of a partnership are employers of the employees of the partnership. An employee cannot bring a third-party action against a member of the employing partnership. Candler v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 57 Wis. 2d 85, 203 N.W.2d 659 (1973).

102.29 Annotation Sub. (1) provides attorney fees are to be allowed as “costs of collection” and, unless otherwise agreed upon, are to be divided between the attorneys for both the employee and the compensation carrier pursuant to court direction. Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 62 Wis. 2d 759, 216 N.W.2d 193 (1974).

102.29 Annotation The words “action commenced by the injured employee” in sub. (5) also encompass the bringing of wrongful death and survival actions. Ortman v. Jensen & Johnson, Inc., 66 Wis. 2d 508, 225 N.W.2d 635 (1975).

102.29 Annotation The six-year limitation on third-party actions for wrongful death provided in sub. (5) does not deny third-party defendants equal protection although other wrongful death defendants are subject to the s. 893.205 (2) three-year limitation. Ortman v. Jenson & Johnson, Inc., 66 Wis. 2d 508, 225 N.W.2d 635 (1975).

102.29 Annotation The extra-hazardous activity exception did not apply to an employee of a general contractor who was injured while doing routine work in a nuclear power plant. Snider v. Northern States Power Co., 81 Wis. 2d 224, 260 N.W.2d 260 (1977).

102.29 Annotation A “business pursuit” exclusion in a defendant coemployee’s homeowner’s policy did not offend public policy. Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis. 2d 13, 271 N.W.2d 603 (1978).

102.29 Annotation That sub. (2) denies third-party tort-feasors the right to a contribution action against a negligent employer who was substantially more at fault does not render the statute unconstitutional. Mulder v. Acme-Cleveland Corp., 95 Wis. 2d 173, 290 N.W.2d 276 (1980).

102.29 Annotation The right to share in a jury award was not dependent on participation in the prosecution of the underlying action. Guyette v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 102 Wis. 2d 496, 307 N.W.2d 311 (Ct. App. 1981).

102.29 Annotation The provision by an employer of alleged negligent medical care to an employee injured on the job by persons employed for that purpose did not subject the employer to tort liability for malpractice. Jenkins v. Sabourin, 104 Wis. 2d 309, 311 N.W.2d 600 (1981).

102.29 Annotation An award for loss of consortium is not subject to the distribution formula under sub. (1). DeMeulenaere v. Transport Insurance Co., 116 Wis. 2d 322, 342 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1983).

102.29 Annotation The trial court exceeded its authority under sub. (1) by applying an alternative allocation formula without the consent of all the parties. An award for pain and suffering is subject to allocation under sub. (1), but an award to a spouse for loss of consortium prior to the employee’s death is not. Kottka v. PPG Industries, Inc., 130 Wis. 2d 499, 388 N.W.2d 160 (1986).

102.29 Annotation The distribution scheme under sub. (1) renders common-law subrogation principles inapplicable. Martinez v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 132 Wis. 2d 11, 390 N.W.2d 72 (Ct. App. 1986).

102.29 Annotation When there are competing claims for insufficient insurance proceeds and one claim is subject to sub. (1) allocation, while the other is not, the formula set forth in this case is to be followed. Brewer v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 142 Wis. 2d 864, 418 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1987).

102.29 Annotation The “dual persona” doctrine is adopted, replacing the “dual capacity” doctrine. A third party may recover from an employer only when the employer has operated in a distinct persona as to the employee. Henning v. General Motors Assembly Division, 143 Wis. 2d 1, 419 N.W.2d 551 (1988).

102.29 Annotation Unless a person is affirmatively negligent with respect to the claimant, the person who employs an independent contractor may not be held vicariously liable to the independent contractor’s employees. Wagner v. Continental Casualty Co., 143 Wis. 2d 379, 421 N.W.2d 835 (1988).

102.29 Annotation The legal distinction between a corporation/employer and a partnership/landlord that leased the factory to the corporation, although both entities were composed of the same individuals, eliminated the partners’ immunity as individuals under the exclusivity doctrine for negligence in maintaining the leased premises. Couillard v. Van Ess, 152 Wis. 2d 62, 447 N.W.2d 391 (Ct. App. 1989).

102.29 Annotation In structured settlement situations, the “remainder” under sub. (1) from which an employee must receive the first one-third is the remainder of the front payment after deduction of collection costs. Skirowski v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 158 Wis. 2d 242, 462 N.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1990).

102.29 Annotation Sub. (6) does not require a temporary employer to control or have the right to control the details of the work being performed. The temporary employer need only control the work activities of the temporary employee; it need not have exclusive control over the employee’s work. Gansch v. Nekoosa Papers, Inc., 158 Wis. 2d 743, 463 N.W.2d 682 (1990).

102.29 Annotation An employee’s cause of action created by a third party’s negligence does not relate back to the initial work injury, but creates a separate cause of action; the cause of action and the employer’s rights of subrogation accrue at the time of the third-party negligence. Sutton v. Kaarakka, 159 Wis. 2d 83, 464 N.W.2d 29 (Ct. App. 1990).

102.29 Annotation A parent corporation can be liable to an employee of a subsidiary as a third-party tort-feasor when the parent negligently undertakes to render services to the subsidiary that the parent should have recognized were necessary for the protection of the subsidiary’s employees. Miller v. Bristol-Myers Co., 168 Wis. 2d 863, 485 N.W.2d 31 (1992).

102.29 Annotation Rights under sub. (1) are not a type of subrogation, but provide a direct cause of action. Campion v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 172 Wis. 2d 405, 493 N.W.2d 244 (Ct. App. 1992).

102.29 Annotation An insurer must be paid under sub. (1) in a third-party settlement for an injury that it concluded was noncompensable but was consequential to the original injury. Nelson v. Rothering, 174 Wis. 2d 296, 496 N.W.2d 87 (1993).

102.29 Annotation A worker’s compensation insurer cannot bring a third-party action against an insurer who paid a claimant under uninsured motorist coverage; uninsured motorist coverage is contractual and this section only applies to tort actions. Berna-Mork v. Jones, 174 Wis. 2d 645, 498 N.W.2d 221 (1993).

102.29 Annotation Sub. (1) does not require an interested party receiving notice of another’s third-party claim to give a reciprocal notice to the party making the claim in order to share in the settlement proceeds. Elliott v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 176 Wis. 2d 410, 500 N.W.2d 397 (Ct. App. 1993).

102.29 Annotation The “dual persona doctrine” that allows an employee to sue an employer in tort when the employer was acting in a persona distinct from its employer persona is available to a temporary employee subject to sub. (6). Melzer v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 177 Wis. 2d 609, 503 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1993).

102.29 Annotation Third-party claims under sub. (1) include wrongful death actions; settlement proceeds are subject to allocation under sub. (1). Stolper v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 178 Wis. 2d 747, 505 N.W.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1993).

102.29 Annotation An insurer had no right to reimbursement from legal malpractice settlement proceeds arising from a failure to file an action for a work related injury. The employee’s injury from the malpractice was the loss of a legal right not a physical injury. Smith v. Long, 178 Wis. 2d 797, 505 N.W.2d 429 (Ct. App. 1993).

102.29 Annotation Damages for a child’s loss of a parent’s society and financial support are not subject to allocation under sub. (1). Cummings v. Klawitter, 179 Wis. 2d 408, 506 N.W.2d 750 (Ct. App. 1993).

102.29 Annotation The traditional four-prong Seaman, 204 Wis. 157 (1931), test for determining whether a person was a “loaned employee” subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of this chapter applies to temporary employees not covered by sub. (6). Bauernfeind v. Zell, 190 Wis. 2d 701, 528 N.W.2d 1 (1995).

102.29 Annotation Pecuniary damages recovered in a third-party wrongful death action are subject to distribution under this section. Johnson v. ABC Insurance Co., 193 Wis. 2d 35, 532 N.W.2d 130 (1995).

102.29 Annotation An insurer is entitled to reimbursement under sub. (1) from an employee’s settlement with his or her employer when the employer’s basis for liability is an indemnification agreement with a third-party tort-feasor. Houlihan v. ABC Insurance Co., 198 Wis. 2d 133, 542 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0662.

102.29 Annotation Sub. (5) extends the statute of limitations only when s. 893.54 is the applicable statute; it does not extend the statute of another state when it is applicable under s. 893.07. That sub. (5) only applies to cases subject to the Wisconsin statute is not unconstitutional. Bell v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines, 198 Wis. 2d 347, 541 N.W.2d 824 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0301.

102.29 Annotation The Seaman, 204 Wis. 157 (1931), loaned employee test has three elements but is often miscast because the Seaman court indicated that there are four “vital questions” that must be answered. The three elements are: 1) consent by the employee; 2) entry by the employee upon work for the special employer; and 3) power in the special employer to control details of the work. When an employee of one employer assists the employees of another employer as a true volunteer, a loaned employee relationship does not result. Borneman v. Corwyn Transport, Ltd., 212 Wis. 2d 25, 567 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2511.

102.29 Annotation The allocation of a settlement to various plaintiffs cannot be contested by an insurer who defaults at the hearing to approve the settlement. An insurer does not lose its right to share in the proceeds by defaulting, but it does forfeit its right to object to the application of settlement proceeds to specific claims. Herlache v. Blackhawk Collision Repair, Inc., 215 Wis. 2d 99, 572 N.W.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0760.

102.29 Annotation In a third-party action filed by an insurer under sub. (1), the insurer has the right to maintain an action for payments it has made or will make to the employee by making a claim for all of the employee’s damages, including pain and suffering. Threshermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Page, 217 Wis. 2d 451, 577 N.W.2d 335 (1998), 95-2942.

102.29 Annotation A variety of factors indicated that a party’s participation in an action constituted “pressing” a claim under this section. Zentgraf v. Hanover Insurance Co., 2002 WI App 13, 250 Wis. 2d 281, 640 N.W.2d 171, 01-0323.

102.29 Annotation Under the “dual persona” doctrine, the employer’s second role must be so unrelated to its role as an employer that it constitutes a separate legal person. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Keltgen, 2003 WI App 53, 260 Wis. 2d 523, 659 N.W.2d 906, 02-1249.

102.29 Annotation A “temporary help agency” requires: 1) an employer who places its employee with a second employer; 2) the second employer controls the employee’s work activities; and 3) the second employer compensates the first employer for the employee’s services. Placement turns not on the physical proximity of the employee to an employer, but upon the purpose of the employee’s work. It is a matter of whose work the employee is performing, not where the work is being performed. Control requires some evidence of compulsion or specific direction concerning the employee’s daily activities. Peronto v. Case Corp., 2005 WI App 32, 278 Wis. 2d 800, 693 N.W.2d 133, 04-0846.

102.29 Annotation The pro rata distribution formula under Brewer, 142 Wis. 2d 864 (1987), applies whenever the insurance proceeds are insufficient to satisfy all claims regardless of the reason for that insufficiency, including a settlement by the parties. Allocating a disproportionate amount of the total settlement to claims that are exempt from sub. (1) circumvents legislative intent. The Brewer formula prevents the parties from using settlement as an end-run around the purposes of the worker’s compensation scheme. Green v. Advance Finishing Technology, Inc., 2005 WI App 70, 280 Wis. 2d 743, 695 N.W.2d 856, 04-0877.

102.29 Annotation Any activities that an attorney takes to bring the claim to court on behalf of the attorney’s client, as enumerated in Zentgraf, 2002 WI App 13, constitute a cost of collection amenable to recovery under sub. (1). Sub. (1) does not require a worker’s compensation attorney to demonstrate that the attorney’s activities substantially contributed to obtaining recovery from the third party, or that the activities were taken on behalf of the employee, in order to join in the pressing of a claim. Anderson v. MSI Preferred Insurance Co., 2005 WI 62, 281 Wis. 2d 66, 697 N.W.2d 73, 03-1880.

102.29 Annotation The deduction for costs of collection under sub. (1) must be reasonable. The circuit court must consider all of the circumstances to determine whether a contingency fee figure is reasonable and look to the factors in SCR 20:1.5(a) that help determine the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. For hourly attorney fees the court must follow the lodestar approach under which the circuit court must first multiply the reasonable hours expended by a reasonable rate then make adjustments using the SCR 20:1.5(a) factors. The sum of all the attorneys’ reasonable fees and costs may, but need not, equal a reasonable cost of collection. The court must evaluate the total cost of collection and determine whether that sum is reasonable, in light of, among other things, the recovery. Anderson v. MSI Preferred Insurance Co., 2005 WI 62, 281 Wis. 2d 66, 697 N.W.2d 73, 03-1880.

102.29 Annotation Sub. (1) transforms a worker’s compensation insurer’s right of subrogation into a right to bring direct claims against third-party tortfeasors. The insurer is entitled to prosecute the action along with the employee by virtue of sub. (1). Sub. (1) gives the trial court the right to settle a dispute between the two plaintiffs, as to whether or not a compromise settlement offered by the defendant should be accepted and does not differentiate between the employee and the worker’s compensation insurer. Dalka v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 WI App 90, 334 Wis. 2d 686, 799 N.W.2d 923, 10-1428.

102.29 Annotation This section preserves an existing common law right. It does not create a new right to tort claims against a third party and it does not permit a party to bypass a statute of repose. Crisanto v. Heritage Relocation Services, Inc., 2014 WI App 75, 355 Wis. 2d 403, 851 N.W.2d 771, 13-1369.

102.29 Annotation A circuit court may compel an employee to accept settlement of a claim against a third party under sub. (1). This result does not violate the employee’s right to a jury trial because the claim sub. (1) creates is not the counterpart of a cause of action at law recognized at the time of the adoption of the Wisconsin Constitution. The circuit court’s authority to compel an employee to accept settlement does not violate procedural due process because judicial resolution of disputes is part of the statutory claim. Adams v. Northland Equipment Co., 2014 WI 79, 356 Wis. 2d 529, 850 N.W.2d 272, 12-0580.

102.29 Annotation Former sub. (6) (b) 1., 2015 stats., expressly prohibited an employee of a temporary help agency “who makes a claim for compensation” from maintaining an action in tort against any employer that compensated the temporary help agency for the employee’s services. The necessary implication of that language is that a temporary employee who did not make a claim for compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Act was not prohibited from bringing a tort claim against the compensating employer. Ehr v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 WI App 14, 380 Wis. 2d 138, 908 N.W.2d 486, 17-0142.

102.29 Annotation Under Anderson, 2005 WI 62, the first step in determining the reasonable costs of collection under sub. (1) is to establish the reasonable value of each attorney’s services. In doing so, a court is typically guided by the respective attorneys’ fee agreements. In this case, however, the record did not contain a written fee agreement or describe the unwritten fee agreement terms with a high degree of clarity or specificity. Under those circumstances, a circuit court may determine the reasonable value of an attorney’s services using a quantum meruit theory—that is, by multiplying the number of hours worked on the case by a reasonable hourly rate. However, a circuit court is not required to employ a quantum meruit approach. Vande Corput v. Pekin Insurance Co., 2018 WI App 56, 384 Wis. 2d 252, 918 N.W.2d 117, 17-0357.

102.29 Annotation In this case, the existence of an unfulfilled contingency did not prevent the circuit court from approving a settlement agreement. Sub. (1) (c) expressly states that the costs of collection shall be divided as directed by a court “unless otherwise agreed upon” by the parties. In this case, the parties did not reach any agreement regarding the division of the costs of collection. On those facts, sub. (1) (c) gave the court clear authority to divide the costs of collection. Vande Corput v. Pekin Insurance Co., 2018 WI App 56, 384 Wis. 2d 252, 918 N.W.2d 117, 17-0357.

102.29 Annotation In this case, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by refusing to distribute any portion of the reasonable cost of collection to the worker’s compensation insurer’s attorneys under sub. (1) (b) 1. and (c). The circuit court determined that the insurer’s attorneys’ contingency fee agreement was unreasonable, concluded that the court could not calculate the reasonable value of the attorneys’ fees using either a lodestar or a quantum meruit analysis because the attorneys had failed to provide the necessary evidence, and, accordingly, concluded that the reasonable amount of the attorneys’ fees was $0. Sinkler v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2019 WI App 64, 389 Wis. 2d 273, 936 N.W.2d 186, 19-0088.

102.29 Annotation For purposes of the independent contractor rule discussed in Wagner, 143 Wis. 2d 379 (1988), an affirmative act of negligence requires active misconduct that increases the risk of harm to the employee. Martinez v. Rullman, 2023 WI App 30, 408 Wis. 2d 503, 992 N.W.2d 853, 21-1720.

102.29 Annotation The independent contractor rule—that a principal employer is not liable to others for the torts of independent contractors—did not apply under the circumstances in this case because the general contractor contracted to take on all responsibility for worker and subcontractor safety related to an open elevator shaft. Martinez v. Rullman, 2023 WI App 30, 408 Wis. 2d 503, 992 N.W.2d 853, 21-1720.

102.29 Annotation Problems in Third Party Action Procedure Under the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act. Piper. 60 MLR 91 (1976).

102.29 Annotation Wisconsin Workmen’s Compensation Act: Impleading a Negligent Employer in a Third-Party Action When the Employer has Provided Workmen’s Compensation Benefits. Miller. 1976 WLR 1201.

102.29 Annotation Product Liability in the Workplace: The Effect of Workers’ Compensation on the Rights and Liabilities of Third Parties. Weisgall. 1977 WLR 1035.

102.29 Annotation Worker’s Compensation: Preoccupation with Work Defense to Contributory Negligence. Parlee. Wis. Law. May 1995.

102.29 Annotation Worker’s Compensation Act No Longer Protects Against Employment Discrimination Claims. Skinner. Wis. Law. Mar. 1998.

102.29 Annotation “Equal Voice” Confirmed: Worker’s Comp Carriers Can Compel Settlement. Weiss. Wis. Law. May 2012.

102.30 102.30 Other insurance not affected; liability of insured employer.

102.30(1) (1) This chapter does not affect the organization of any mutual or other insurance company or the right of the employer to insure in mutual or other companies against such liability or against the liability for the compensation provided for by this chapter.

102.30(2) (2) An employer may provide by mutual or other insurance, by arrangement with employees or otherwise, for the payment to those employees, their families, their dependents or their representatives, of sick, accident or death benefits in addition to the compensation provided under this chapter. Liability for compensation is not affected by any insurance, contribution or other benefit due to or received by the person entitled to that compensation.

102.30(3) (3) Unless an employee elects to receive sick leave benefits in lieu of compensation under this chapter, if sick leave benefits are paid during the period that temporary disability benefits are payable, the employer shall restore sick leave benefits to the employee in an amount equal in value to the amount payable under this chapter. The combination of temporary disability benefits and sick leave benefits paid to the employee may not exceed the employee’s weekly wage.

102.30(4) (4) Regardless of any insurance or other contract, an employee or dependent entitled to compensation under this chapter may recover compensation directly from the employer and may enforce in the person’s own name, in the manner provided in this chapter, the liability of any insurance company which insured the liability for that compensation. The appearance, whether general or special, of any such insurance carrier by agent or attorney constitutes waiver of the service of copy of application and of notice of hearing required by s. 102.17.

102.30(5) (5) Payment of compensation under this chapter by either the employer or the insurance company shall, to the extent thereof, bar recovery against the other of the amount so paid. As between the employer and the insurance company, payment by either the employer or the insurance company directly to the employee or the person entitled to compensation is subject to the conditions of the policy.

102.30(6) (6) The failure of the assured to do or refrain from doing any act required by the policy is not available to the insurance carrier as a defense against the claim of the injured employee or the injured employee’s dependents.

102.30(7) (7) 

102.30(7)(a) (a) The department or the division may order direct reimbursement out of the proceeds payable under this chapter for payments made under a nonindustrial insurance policy covering the same disability and expenses compensable under s. 102.42 when the claimant consents or when it is established that the payments under the nonindustrial insurance policy were improper. No attorney fee is due with respect to that reimbursement.

102.30(7)(b) (b) An insurer who issues a nonindustrial insurance policy described in par. (a) may not intervene as a party in any proceeding under this chapter for reimbursement under par. (a).

102.30 History History: 1973 c. 150; 1975 c. 147 ss. 25, 54; 1975 c. 199; 1985 a. 83; 1987 a. 179; 2015 a. 55.

102.30 Annotation The prohibition of intervention by nonindustrial insurers under sub. (7) (b) is constitutional. An insurer is not denied a remedy for amounts wrongfully paid to its insured. It may bring a direct action the insured. Employers Health Insurance Co. v. Tesmer, 161 Wis. 2d 733, 469 N.W.2d 203 (Ct. App. 1991).

102.30 Annotation Although sub. (7) (a), read in isolation, authorizes the reimbursement of a subrogated insurer, when an insurer becomes subrogated by paying medical expenses arising from injuries that are compensable under this chapter, and the employer’s worker’s compensation insurance carrier is in liquidation, s. 646.31 (11) precludes the Labor and Industry Review Commission from ordering the employer to reimburse the subrogated insurer for those expenses. Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund v. LIRC, 2005 WI App 242, 288 Wis. 2d 206, 707 N.W.2d 293, 04-2157.

102.31 102.31 Worker’s compensation insurance; policy regulations.

102.31(1) (1) 

102.31(1)(a) (a) Every contract for the insurance of compensation provided under this chapter or against liability therefor is subject to this chapter and provisions inconsistent with this chapter are void.

102.31(1)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), a contract under par. (a) shall be construed to grant full coverage of all liability of the assured under this chapter unless the department specifically consents by written order to the issuance of a contract providing divided insurance or partial insurance.

102.31(1)(c) (c)

102.31(1)(c)1. 1. Liability under s. 102.35 (3) is the sole liability of the employer, notwithstanding any agreement of the parties to the contrary.

102.31(1)(c)2. 2. An intermediate agency or publisher of a newspaper or magazine may, under its own contract of insurance, cover liability of persons selling or distributing the newspaper or magazine on the street or from house to house for an intermediate or independent news agency, if the contract of insurance of the publisher or intermediate agency is endorsed to cover those persons. If the publisher so covers, the intermediate or independent news agency need not cover liability for those persons.

102.31(1)(d) (d) A contract procured to insure a partnership may not be construed to cover the individual liability of the members of the partnership in the course of a trade, business, profession or occupation conducted by them as individuals. A contract procured to insure an individual may not be construed to cover the liability of a partnership of which the individual is a member or to cover the liability of the individual arising as a member of any partnership.

102.31(1)(dL) (dL) A contract procured to insure a limited liability company may not be construed to cover the individual liability of the members of the limited liability company in the course of a trade, business, profession or occupation conducted by them as individuals. A contract procured to insure an individual may not be construed to cover the liability of a limited liability company of which the individual is a member or to cover the liability of the individual arising as a member of any limited liability company.

102.31(1)(e) (e) An insurer who provides a contract under par. (a) shall file the contract as provided in s. 626.35.

102.31(2) (2)