Wis. Stat. § 893.07
Wis. Stat. § 893.07
The borrowing statute was properly applied to an injury received outside of this state. A conflict of laws analysis was not appropriate. Guertin v. Harbour Assurance Co., 141 Wis. 2d 622, 415 N.W.2d 831 (1987). Section 893.16(1) is effective to toll the running of the statute of limitations, even when under this section the plaintiff would be barred from bringing suit under applicable foreign law. Scott v. First State Insurance Co., 155 Wis. 2d 608, 456 N.W.2d 312 (1990). This section does not borrow foreign tolling statutes. Johnson v. Johnson, 179 Wis. 2d 574, 508 N.W.2d 19 (Ct. App. 1993). This section is applicable to actions on contracts. A claim is foreign when the final significant event giving rise to a suable event, the alleged breach, occurs outside the state. Abraham v. General Casualty Co., 217 Wis. 2d 294, 576 N.W.2d 46 (1998), 95-2918. Sub. (1) refers to "the period of limitation," as defined by the foreign jurisdiction, that governs the case in the foreign state. Application of this rule includes a limitation period that operates as a statute of repose. Wenke v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103, 274 Wis. 2d 220, 682 N.W.2d 405, 01-2649. In medical malpractice cases involving a negligent misdiagnosis that results in a latent, though continuous, injury, whether the action is "foreign" for purposes of Wisconsin's borrowing statute is determined by whether the plaintiff's first injury occurred outside of Wisconsin. When the plaintiff's place of first injury is unknowable but could have occurred within or outside of this state, the borrowing statute does not apply. Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Insurance Co., 2019 WI 65, 387 Wis. 2d 278, 929 N.W.2d 113, 17-0739. A cause of action is foreign for purposes of the borrowing statute if the plaintiff's injury occurred outside of this state. An injury occurs where it is felt rather than where it originates. To the extent the physician in this case violated the plaintiff's right to informed consent, that injury was felt in Michigan because the plaintiff was in Michigan when the physician allegedly informed the plaintiff that his growth was not malignant and needed no further treatment. Paynter v. ProAssurance Wisconsin Insurance Co., 2019 WI 65, 387 Wis. 2d 278, 929 N.W.2d 113, 17-0739. A tort action based on an injury received outside of this state was "foreign." Johnson v. Deltadynamics, Inc., 813 F.2d 944 (1987). Under this section, a foreign jurisdiction's period of limitations is borrowed, but not its period of repose. Beard v. J.I. Case Co., 823 F.2d 1095 (1987). It is a quirk of libel law that a plaintiff is generally considered to be injured wherever the defamatory writing is published. Therefore, a multistate defamation case in which at least some injury occurs within the borders of this state does not constitute a foreign cause of action for purposes of the borrowing statute. Faigin v. Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 98 F.3d 268 (1996). This section directs courts to apply the shortest limitation period possible to foreign causes of action, whether the applicable statute is a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. Merner v. Deere & Co., (2001). Wisconsin's borrowing statute: Did we shortchange ourselves? 70 MLR 120 (1986). Interpreting Wisconsin's Borrowing Statute. Wiegand. Wis. Law. May 2001.