631.81 Notice and proof of loss.

(1) Timeliness of notice. Provided notice or proof of loss is furnished as soon as reasonably possible and within one year after the time it was required by the policy, failure to furnish such notice or proof within the time required by the policy does not invalidate or reduce a claim unless the insurer is prejudiced thereby and it was reasonably possible to meet the time limit.

(2) Method of giving notice. It is a sufficient service of notice or proof of loss if a 1st class postage prepaid envelope addressed to the insurer and containing the proper notice or proof is deposited in any U.S. post office within the time prescribed. The commissioner may expressly approve clauses requiring more expeditious methods of notice where that is reasonable.

(3) Meaning of insurer's acts. The acknowledgment by the insurer of the receipt of notice, the furnishing of forms for filing proofs of loss, the acceptance of such proofs, or the investigation of any claim are not alone sufficient to waive any of the rights of the insurer in defense of any claim arising under the insurance contract.

History: 1975 c. 375.

An insured's contradictory statements constituted a breach of the contractual duties of notice and cooperation. Dietz v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 88 Wis. 2d 496, 276 N.W.2d 808 (1979).

When the insured fails to give notice within one year after the time required in the policy, there is a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, and the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced. Neff v. Pierzina, 2001 WI 95, 245 Wis. 2d 285, 629 N.W.2d 177, 99-1069.

The Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts state law related to any covered employee benefit plan, but does not preempt state regulation of insurance. This section regulates insurance and is not preempted. Bogusewski v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, 977 F. Supp. 1357 (1997).

An insurer is prejudiced by late notice when it has been denied the opportunity to have input into how the underlying claim is being defended. An insured may not assume that if its insurer had been given the opportunity to make a timely investigation, it would have produced the same result as that produced by the insured's own investigation or that any discovery that the insurer would have conducted would parallel that already conducted by the insured. Phoenix Contractors, Inc. v. Affiliated Capital Corporation, 2004 WI App 103, 273 Wis. 2d 736, 681 N.W.2d 310, 03-2259.

Wisconsin's notice-prejudice statutes, this section and s. 632.26, do not supersede the reporting requirement specific to claims-made-and-reported policies. Anderson v. Aul, 2015 WI 19, 361 Wis. 2d 63, 862 N.W.2d 304, 13-0500.