May 8, 2025, the Assembly Committee on Insurance held a public hearing on Assembly Bill 225, legislation authored by Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield) and Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac) to reform how the proper venue for a civil case is determined in Wisconsin. Under current Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions, the proper venue for a civil action must be in:

 

• the county where the claim arose,
• the county where any property subject to the claim is situated,
• the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business, or,
• if none of the above apply, in any county designated by the plaintiff.

 

Unfortunately, members of the plaintiff’s bar have been exploiting the provision relating to where a defendant in an action does substantial business to move cases to a county where an insurer in the case does business, making the litigation less convenient for other defendants and too often to a “friendly” venue from the plaintiff’s attorney’s perspective, such as Dane or Milwaukee County. For example, defense counsel anecdotally have reported they have seen a rise in cases being filed in Dane County, with no other contact to the case other than the insurer doing business in Dane County.

 

AB 225 provides that when a court determines the proper venue for a proceeding, the court may not consider the participation of an insurance company who is named as a party to the civil action only because either:

• the insurance company issued a policy to a policyholder against whom a claim is being made or
• the insurance company, by virtue of a payment made to its policyholder, has a right to be reimbursed out of any proceeds from the action or special proceedings, as provided under current law.

 

The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council and its members are supporting AB 225. The key points to this reform are:

 

• Limiting venue shopping helps ensure that parties cannot choose a specific court more favorable to a party for a case, maintaining procedural fairness and preventing abuse of our court system.

 

• By limiting venue shopping, cases can often be resolved more quickly and efficiently as they will be heard in the appropriate court, reducing delays and costs associated with unnecessary venue changes.

 

• Having cases heard in the appropriate venue helps ensure that legal decisions are made in a consistent manner, as the laws and procedures of that jurisdiction are applied, helping to promote predictability and stability in the courts.

 

• Limiting venue shopping helps ensure that all parties have equal access to a fair and impartial legal process, as cases are heard in a venue that has a direct connection to the litigation because it is the county where the incident arose, the county where the subject property is situated, or the county where the principal defendant(s) reside(s) or has its principal place of business, without preference given to one party over another.

 

The Wisconsin Association for Justice, representing the plaintiff’s bar, are opposed.