WDC, Its Members, and Hamilton Consulting Step Up To Educate Wisconsin’s Legislature on Proposed Change to Venue Statute
Heather Nelson, Everson, Whitney, Everson & Brehm, S.C.

Recently, State Senator Dan Feyen (Senate Bill 226) and State Representative Cindi Duchow (Assembly Bill 225) authored and co-sponsored legislation which would amend Wisconsin’s venue statute, Wis. Stat. § 801.50. The main purpose of the amendment is to remove from venue options any consideration of an insurance company’s corporate location or county in which an insurance company does substantial business, if the insurance company is named as a party by virtue of the direct action statute or its subrogation interest.

The proposed amendment reads as follows: 

SECTION 1. 801.50 (3c) of the statutes is created to read:

801.50 (3c) In determining whether a county is a proper venue under sub. (2) (c), the court may not consider the participation of any of the following:

(a) A party joined to the civil action or special proceeding pursuant to s. 803.03.

(b) An insurer joined to the civil action or special proceeding pursuant to s. 803.04.

SECTION 2. 801.50(3g) of the statutes is created to read:

801.50 (3g) For the purposes of sub. (2) (c),[1] a corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity shall be deemed to reside in the place of incorporation or organization, and a corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity shall be deemed to be doing substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business. 

The bill’s co-sponsors circulated a memo to their legislative colleagues noting that the purpose of the venue statute is to ensure a fair and convenient location is chosen for trial, noting Wisconsin courts “have acknowledged that the county where the underlying conduct occurred is likely the most convenient forum.” The memo goes on to note that the somewhat common practice of filing suit in any county where an insurer does substantial business can undermine fairness and convenience factors. The proposed legislation’s purposes are to prevent forum shopping, to promote efficiency, to gain consistency in legal decisions, and to encourage fairness and access to justice. 

Hamilton Consulting Group, LLC, is a legislative lobbying group engaged by WDC to keep us apprised of such legislative matters and to assist us in registering positions and/or providing testimony. Hamilton made WDC aware of this proposed legislation immediately and, along with WDC’s Executive Committee, developed and enacted a plan. An e-mail blast was sent to our membership seeking anecdotal information about civil litigation which was venued in a plaintiff-friendly county which had no actual ties to any defendant (other than an insurance company) or the location of the allegedly tortious act. Our members stepped up and quickly sent numerous examples. 

On relatively short notice, WDC Past President and Rural Mutual Insurance Company Vice President of Claims and General Counsel Ariella Schreiber agreed to provide testimony to the Assembly Committee on Insurance on May 8, 2025. Attorney Daniel Mullin of Crivello, Nichols & Hall, S.C., also testified before the Committee. Hamilton worked with Attorney Schreiber and prepared written testimony to circulate to the Committee; this included numerous examples of cases which were filed in counties with no meaningful relationship to the alleged tortious conduct or to any non-insurer defendant – cases in which motions to change venue were nevertheless denied. Some of this anecdotal evidence was provided by Attorney Schreiber based on Rural Mutual Insurance Company’s experience with this issue and other examples were provided by numerous WDC members who responded to the eblast. 

A few case and anecdotal examples:

• An auto-versus-motorcycle liability accident that occurred in Crawford County. The plaintiffs resided in Crawford County and the defendant resided in Grant County. Witnesses to the accident resided in Crawford County and the majority of the plaintiff’s medical treatment occurred in Crawford County. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Dane County. Rural filed a motion to change venue and asked the court to move the venue to Crawford County. The judge denied the motion and the case remained in Dane County.

• A two-vehicle accident that occurred in Rock County. The plaintiff was a resident of Lyman, Wyoming. The defendants resided in Rock County and all the plaintiff’s medical treatment occurred in Rock County. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Milwaukee County. Rural filed a motion to change venue to Rock County. The court denied the motion and ruled that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is given “great deference.” The case remained in Milwaukee County.

• An accident occurred in Illinois, less than a mile south of the border. All parties lived in Rock County at the time of the accident. Plaintiff brought suit in Dane County. Both defendants moved for change of venue. At the time the motion was filed, plaintiff and one defendant still lived in Rock County. The other defendant was no longer in Rock County but was incarcerated at Dodge Correctional. The court denied both motions for change of venue (Dane to Rock) because American Family was in Dane County.

• An accident occurred in Milwaukee County. Plaintiff’s address on her ID was in Illinois. The defendant trucking company had its headquarters in Fond Du Lac County. The plaintiff filed in Ashland County because the trucking company indicates on its website that they provide their services throughout Wisconsin. The judge denied a motion to change venue to Fond Du Lac County or in the alternative Milwaukee County.

The Wisconsin Association for Justice (WAJ) registered opposition for the bill. Attorney Noah Domnitz represented WAJ and the plaintiffs’ bar, arguing that the legislature should not consider the proposed change because the Wisconsin Judicial Council did not identify the venue statute as problematic or needing any revision. He then reductively concluded that there was therefore no issue with the venue statute. Most interestingly, he suggested that insurance companies are the true “interested parties” in any civil suit and therefore any county in which they do substantial business should be an option when choosing venue. 

WDC was very well represented at the hearing by Attorney Schreiber. In addition to providing her written testimony, she deftly fielded questions from the Committee members. Excerpts from her written testimony include the following:

The purpose of Wisconsin’s Venue in a Civil Action statute—Wis. Stat. 801.50—is to set forth the factors that determine where a case’s venue is proper. The goal is a fair, convenient trial for all parties in the case. Unfortunately, the current Venue statute creates an opportunity for a plaintiff to sue a defendant in a county that has no relationship to the parties, the accident, or the property at issue simply because an insurance company “does substantial business” in that county. In simple terms, this is forum shopping, and it allows plaintiffs to capitalize on the insurer’s business in that county rather than filing the case in the proper venue. Allowing plaintiffs to forum shop based solely on an insurer’s business in any particular county is unfair to Wisconsin residents named as defendants in civil lawsuits because it creates an unlevel playing field and harms individuals when they have to travel great distances to counties unrelated to the case. 

AB 225 solves the forum shopping issue in a fair and common-sense manner by preventing a plaintiff from using an insurer’s mere presence to justify a venue when that venue has no true relationship to the case. It does not change the law on venue in any other way: a plaintiff may still sue a defendant in the county where the claim arose, where the real or tangible property that is the subject of the claim is situated, or in the county where a non-insurer defendant resides or does substantial business. It does not limit a plaintiff’s ability to bring the lawsuit against the at-fault party or against the insurer directly. And it does not limit the plaintiff’s ability to venue a case in any particular county as long as that county has some relationship to the case other than the insurer’s business.

Next, AB 225 promotes fairness in the courts and ensures that defendants are judged by a jury of their peers. It ensures that a case is heard in the county that has actual ties to either the accident, the property, or the defendants. It ensures that the jury is composed of members of the defendant’s community. And it avoids favoring the plaintiff over the defendant simply because the defendant had the good sense to buy insurance. 

AB 225 also promotes access to the court system by ensuring that cases are heard in the correct county. It will reduce the number of cases filed in counties that plaintiffs view as favorable, which, in turn, promotes better efficiency in all counties. If an accident happens in Clark County and the defendant resides in Clark County, then a Clark County judge should rule on the case and a Clark County jury should evaluate that defendant’s conduct. A plaintiff should not have the ability to venue the case in a different county – thereby adding to already high caseloads – simply because they view that county as more favorable. 

Finally, any discussion of the Venue statute is incomplete without also addressing Wisconsin’s Direct Action Against Insurer Statute, Wis. Stat. 632.24. The Direct Action statute allows injured individuals the right to sue the tortfeasor’s insurer directly and without the need to name the tortfeasor in the lawsuit. Direct Action statutes are unusual – only about 20% of States have a Direct Action statute and Wisconsin’s statute is one of the most expansive in the U.S. While they may not seem directly related, the existence of a Direct Action statute creates another opportunity for forum shopping because it allows the plaintiff to sue the insurer directly without naming any other defendant in the lawsuit. The Direct Action statute and the current Venue statute enable a plaintiff to name only the insurer and file the suit in the desired county simply because the insurer is the only defendant named in the lawsuit. Again, this is not a just result for all parties; it is a result chosen by the plaintiff and enabled by the Venue Statute’s current drafting. AB 225 fixes this in a simple and elegant way that ensures justice and does not prejudice any party in the lawsuit. 

Wisconsin’s Senate has not yet scheduled a hearing on SB-226. We will continue to keep our membership updated as to any developments. 

Author Biography:

Heather Nelson is President and Shareholder of Everson, Whitney, Everson & Brehm, S.C., in Green Bay. She currently serves as WDC President, having served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee as well. Heather is an experienced trial attorney, having successfully tried cases before juries in state and federal courts throughout Wisconsin and Illinois. She obtained her J.D. from DePaul University College of Law in Chicago and launched her legal career in the Chicago area. Heather became licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 2000, defending cases in both Illinois and Wisconsin. Joining The Everson Law Firm in 2016 brought Heather back home to her Green Bay roots. Heather has been active in presenting CLE topics at WDC conferences, for the State Bar of Wisconsin, and at the North Central Region Trial Academy. None of this impresses her rescue dog and best boy, Bear, who cares only about long walks, pond swims and tummy rubs.