2014 WI 28

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2012AP320 

COMPLETE TITLE: Sharon A. Waranka Individually and as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Nicholas 

Waranka,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

Wadena Insurance Company, Auto Owners Insurance 

Company, 

Michael Eidenberger, Larry Neman and American 

Family 

Mutual Insurance Company,

 Defendants-Respondents,

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 

Scott R. 

Brewer, Zachary G. Nelson, Mark Jonas,

 Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners,

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,

 Defendant. 

REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

348 Wis. 2d 111, 832 N.W.2d 133

(Ct. App. 2013 – Published)

PDC No: 2013 WI App 56

OPINION FILED: June 3, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: February 20, 2014 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: Circuit 

COUNTY: Ozaukee

JUDGE: Paul V. Malloy

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: 

DISSENTED: 

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:

For the defendants-respondents-petitioners, there were 

briefs by James O. Conway, Corrado Cirillo, and Olsen, Kloet, 

Gunderson & Conway, Sheboygan, and oral argument by Corrado 

Cirillo.
2

For the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was argued by Susan 

R. Tyndall, with whom on the brief was Robert L. Jaskulski and 

Habush Habush & Rottier, S.C., Milwaukee. 
2014 WI 28

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2012AP320

(L.C. No. 2010CV219)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

Sharon A. Waranka Individually and as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Nicholas 

Waranka, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

Wadena Insurance Company, Auto Owners Insurance 

Company, Michael Eidenberger, Larry Neman and 

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 

Defendants-Respondents,

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 

Scott R. Brewer, Zachary G. Nelson, Mark Jonas,

Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners,

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,

 

Defendant.

 

FILED

JUN 3, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. 

¶1 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. Petitioners, State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company, Scott R. Brewer, Zachary G. 

Nelson, and Mark Jonas (collectively referred to as State Farm)

seek review of that part of a published decision of the court of 
No. 2012AP320 

2

appeals that reversed the circuit court's order in this wrongful 

death action.1 The circuit court determined that the wrongful 

death damage limitations applied to an action brought by the 

plaintiff, Sharon A. Waranka (Waranka), seeking recovery for the 

out-of-state death of her husband. The court of appeals 

disagreed. It concluded that because the damage limitations in 

Wis. Stat. § 895.04 (2011-12)2 must be read together with the 

wrongful death statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03, and because the 

latter expressly provides that it does not apply to deaths 

caused out of state, the Wisconsin wrongful death damage 

limitations do not apply. 

¶2 State Farm argues that Wis. Stat. § 895.04, which 

sets a monetary cap on the amount of non-economic damages a 

plaintiff can recover in a wrongful death action, can apply 

independently from Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, Wis. 

Stat. § 895.03. According to State Farm, Michigan law, which 

does not set a cap on the amount of recoverable damages, is 

inapplicable. It asserts that when a conflict of laws analysis 

is conducted, the lack of significant ties to Michigan militates 

in favor of applying Wisconsin law.

¶3 We conclude that the limitations on wrongful death 

actions in Wis. Stat. § 895.04 necessarily refer to wrongful 

 

1 Waranka v. Wadena Ins. Co., 2013 WI App 56, 348 Wis. 2d 

111, 832 N.W.2d 133 (reversing in part, affirming in part an 

order of the circuit court for Ozaukee County, Paul V. Malloy, 

Judge).

2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 

the 2011-12 version unless otherwise indicated.
No. 2012AP320 

3

death actions created by Wis. Stat. § 895.03. The language of 

the statutes, our case law interpreting both Wis. Stat. 

§§ 895.03 and 895.04, their statutory history, and the canon of 

statutory construction, in pari materia,3 dictate that Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.04 cannot be applied separately from Wis. Stat. § 895.03. 

¶4 We further conclude that because Wis. Stat. § 895.03 

does not apply to deaths caused outside the state of Wisconsin, 

there is no conflict between Wisconsin law and Michigan's 

wrongful death statute. Only Michigan's wrongful death statute 

applies here and thus we need not undertake a conflict of laws 

analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

I

¶5 Nicholas Waranka, a Wisconsin resident, went on 

vacation to an annual snowmobile event in Michigan. The event, 

called "Rubbish Run," was held by patrons and friends of Port 

Washington Yamaha, a snowmobile dealership located in Port 

Washington, Wisconsin. It was attended primarily by Wisconsin 

residents. 

¶6 On the morning of January 30, 2009, Nicholas joined 

nine other individuals for a snowmobile ride through the 

Hiawatha National Forest. During that ride, they came upon a 

snow embankment. The first four riders avoided it. However, the 

remaining riders struck the embankment, lost control of their 

 

3 In pari materia literally means "[o]n the same subject; 

relating to the same matter." State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77, 

¶127 n.3, 301 Wis. 2d 531, 734 N.W.2d 81.
No. 2012AP320 

4

vehicles, and collided. Nicholas and another individual died as 

a result of the injuries they sustained in the collision. 

¶7 Nicholas was survived by his wife, Sharon Waranka, and 

his daughter. Waranka filed a lawsuit in Ozaukee County, on 

behalf of herself and as a representative of Nicholas' estate, 

against several of the individuals who were part of the group 

that went riding that morning and the various insurance carriers

providing coverage for the snowmobiles. It is undisputed that 

each of the individual defendants is a resident of Wisconsin and 

that three of the five insurance carriers named as defendants 

insured snowmobiles garaged in Wisconsin pursuant to policies 

issued in Wisconsin. 

¶8 Waranka alleged that the individual defendants were 

negligent in the operation of their snowmobiles and that their 

negligence led to Nicholas' death. She sought damages for 

Nicholas' medical, funeral, and burial expenses, Nicholas' pain 

and suffering, the loss of services and financial support 

suffered by his survivors, the loss of parental training and 

guidance suffered by his daughter, and loss of society and 

companionship.

¶9 Waranka moved for a declaratory order determining that 

Michigan's Wrongful Death Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2922,4

 

4 Michigan Comp. Laws § 600.2922, in relevant part, 

provides:

(1) Whenever the death of a person, injuries resulting 

in death, or death as described in section 2922a shall 

be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of 

another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as 
No. 2012AP320 

5

applied to the damage issues in her lawsuit. She asserted that 

Michigan law governed damages because Wisconsin's wrongful death 

statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03,5 does not apply to deaths caused 

outside the state of Wisconsin. She explained that a conflict 

of laws analysis was not needed because the statutes did not 

conflict. A cause of action existed only under Michigan law. 

 

would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the 

party injured to maintain an action and recover 

damages, the person who or the corporation that would 

have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be 

liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the 

death of the person injured or death as described in 

section 2922a, and although the death was caused under 

circumstances that constitute a felony.

. . . .

(6) In every action under this section, the court or 

jury may award damages as the court or jury shall 

consider fair and equitable, under all the 

circumstances including reasonable medical, hospital, 

funeral, and burial expenses for which the estate is 

liable; reasonable compensation for the pain and 

suffering, while conscious, undergone by the deceased 

during the period intervening between the time of the 

injury and death; and damages for the loss of 

financial support and the loss of the society and 

companionship of the deceased. . . .

5 Wisconsin Stat. § 895.03 states:

Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by a 

wrongful act, neglect or default and the act, neglect 

or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, 

have entitled the party injured to maintain an action 

and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in 

every such case the person who would have been liable, 

if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action 

for damages notwithstanding the death of the person 

injured; provided, that such action shall be brought 

for a death caused in this state.
No. 2012AP320 

6

In the alternative, Waranka contended that even if the court 

were to conduct a conflict of laws analysis on the damage 

issues, Michigan law would apply. 

¶10 State Farm6 asserted that Wisconsin law should govern

the damage issues in this case. It argued that although 

Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03, did not 

apply, Waranka could still bring an action under Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.04, which limits damages in wrongful death cases to 

$350,000. According to State Farm, there was no reason to apply 

Michigan law because the case was brought in Wisconsin and it 

lacked significant contacts with Michigan. 

¶11 The circuit court issued an order stating that it 

would recognize the cause of action under Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 600.2922(1), but that Wisconsin law would apply to the damage 

issues in the case. It later denied Waranka's motion for 

reconsideration.

¶12 Waranka filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that 

Wis. Stat. § 895.04, which governs the terms and limits of 

wrongful death actions, could not apply separately from 

Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03. 

Accordingly, she asserted that Michigan law should apply to the 

issue of damages. 

¶13 The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court 

that because Wisconsin's wrongful death statute does not apply 

to deaths caused in another state, Michigan's wrongful death 

 

6 In the circuit court defendant Nelson took no position on 

whether Wisconsin law should apply to the issue of damages. 
No. 2012AP320 

7

statute applied to Waranka's action. Waranka v. Wadena Ins.

Co., 2013 WI App 56, ¶7, 348 Wis. 2d 111, 832 N.W.2d 133. 

However, it disagreed with the circuit court's analysis of the 

damages issue. It referenced the canon of construction that 

statutes passed in the same legislative act and on the same 

subject must be construed together, and noted that Wis. Stat. 

§§ 895.03 and 895.04 were created together. Id. at ¶9. 

Accordingly, the court of appeals determined that the provisions 

in Wis. Stat. § 895.04 governing the terms and limits of 

wrongful death actions could not be applied separately from 

Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03. Id. at 

¶12. 

¶14 Because Wisconsin's wrongful death laws did not apply, 

the court of appeals reasoned that there was no conflict with 

Michigan's wrongful death statute and that no conflict of laws 

analysis was necessary. Id. at ¶16. Accordingly, it determined 

that the Michigan law on wrongful death would apply in its 

entirety. Id. 

II

¶15 In this case we are asked to address two issues. 

First, we are asked to determine whether Wis. Stat. § 895.04,

governing the terms and limits of wrongful death actions, can be 

applied separately from Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, Wis. 

Stat. § 895.03. Statutory interpretation is a question of law 

that we review independently of the determinations rendered by 

the circuit court and the court of appeals. Petta v. ABC Ins. 

Co., 2005 WI 18, ¶12, 278 Wis. 2d 251, 692 N.W.2d 639.
No. 2012AP320 

8

¶16 Second, we are asked to determine whether Wisconsin or 

Michigan law applies to the issue of damages. Such a 

determination also presents a question of law that we review 

independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit 

court and the court of appeals. Drinkwater v. Am. Family Mut. 

Ins. Co., 2006 WI 56, ¶14, 290 Wis. 2d 642, 714 N.W.2d 568.

III

¶17 We begin by addressing the interpretations of Wis. 

Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04. Statutory interpretation focuses 

initially on the language of the statute. State ex rel. Kalal 

v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 

110. We consider the language in the context in which it 

appears. Klemm v. Am. Transmission Co., 2011 WI 37, ¶18, 333 

Wis. 2d 580, 798 N.W.2d 223. We also examine our case law 

interpreting the statute and its statutory history. Nowell v. 

City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, ¶21, 351 Wis. 2d 1, 838 N.W.2d 852; 

Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶22, 309 Wis. 2d 

541, 749 N.W.2d 581. Our inquiry is guided by the canon of 

statutory construction, in pari materia, that statutes passed in 

the same legislative act on the same subject must be construed 

together. City of Menasha v. WERC, 2011 WI App 108, ¶11, 335 

Wis. 2d 250, 802 N.W.2d 531.

¶18 In Wisconsin the right to bring suit for wrongful 

death is governed by Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04. Cogger v. 

Trudell, 35 Wis. 2d 350, 353, 151 N.W.2d 146 (1967). It is 

undisputed that the plain language of the wrongful death 
No. 2012AP320 

9

statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.03, prevents its application to deaths 

caused outside of the state. The statute provides:

Recovery for death by wrongful act. Whenever the death 

of a person shall be caused by a wrongful act, neglect 

or default and the act, neglect or default is such as 

would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the 

party injured to maintain an action and recover 

damages in respect thereof, then and in every such 

case the person who would have been liable, if death 

had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for 

damages notwithstanding the death of the person 

injured; provided, that such action shall be brought 

for a death caused in this state.

Wis. Stat. § 895.03 (emphasis added).

¶19 If no Wisconsin wrongful death cause of action arises 

under Wis. Stat. § 895.03, the language of Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 

and 895.04, our case law interpreting both statutes, their 

statutory history, and the canon of statutory construction, in 

pari materia, dictate that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 terms and 

limitations do not apply. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.04 governs who 

may be a plaintiff in a wrongful death suit and what damages a 

plaintiff may seek to recover. More specifically, it permits 

the personal representative of the decedent's estate or the 

person to whom recovery belongs to bring a wrongful death action 

and provides that non-economic damages are limited to $350,000. 

Wis. Stat. § 895.04. In relevant part, it states:

(1) An action for wrongful death may be brought by the 

personal representative of the deceased person or by 

the person to whom the amount recovered belongs. 

. . .

(4) Judgment for damages for pecuniary injury from 

wrongful death may be awarded to any person entitled 
No. 2012AP320 

10

to bring a wrongful death action. Additional damages 

not to exceed $500,000 per occurrence in the case of a 

deceased minor, or $350,000 per occurrence in the case 

of a deceased adult, for loss of society and 

companionship may be awarded to the spouse, children 

or parents of the deceased, or to the siblings of the 

deceased, if the siblings were minors at the time of 

the death. 

(5) If the personal representative brings the action, 

the personal representative may also recover the 

reasonable cost of medical expenses, funeral expenses,

including the reasonable cost of a cemetery lot, grave 

marker and care of the lot. If a relative brings the 

action, the relative may recover such medical 

expenses, funeral expenses, including the cost of a 

cemetery lot, grave marker and care of the lot, on 

behalf of himself or herself or of any person who has 

paid or assumed liability for such expenses. 

. . .

(7) Damages found by a jury in excess of the maximum 

amount specified in sub. (4) shall be reduced by the 

court to such maximum. The aggregate of the damages 

covered by subs. (4) and (5) shall be diminished under 

s. 895.045 if the deceased or person entitled to 

recover is found negligent.

Wis. Stat. § 895.04.

¶20 By its terms, Wis. Stat. § 895.04 applies to 

"action[s] for wrongful death." It follows Wis. Stat. § 895.03,7

and the language of the two statutes are inextricably 

intertwined. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.03 merely establishes the 

 

7 Although Wis. Stat. § 895.04 initially immediately 

followed Wis. Stat. § 895.03, since their passage statutes have 

been inserted between the two: Wis. Stat. § 895.031 Recovery 

from estate of wrongdoer (created in 1937); Wis. Stat. § 895.035 

Parental liability for acts of a minor child (created in 1957);

Wis. Stat. § 895.037 Abortion on or for a minor without parental 

consent or judicial waiver (created in 1991); and Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.038 Partial-birth abortions; liability (created in 1997).
No. 2012AP320 

11

cause of action, but "does not state who is entitled to maintain 

the action, the type and amount of damages recoverable, or to 

whom the recovery belongs. Those determinations must be made by 

reference to the provisions of [Wis. Stat. §] 895.04." Harris 

v. Kelley, 70 Wis. 2d 242, 248, 234 N.W.2d 628 (1975). Indeed, 

the language in Wis. Stat. § 895.04 relies on the existence of a 

wrongful death claim. It indicates who may bring a wrongful 

death claim and what may be recovered by a "person entitled to 

bring a wrongful death action." Wis. Stat. § 895.04(4). Absent 

a wrongful death action, no recovery may occur under Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.04.

¶21 Consistent with the statutes' language, Wisconsin 

courts have declined to consider Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04 

separately. For example, in Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg, 130 

Wis. 2d 464, 492, 387 N.W.2d 751 (1986), the court rejected a 

plaintiff's argument that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 creates a separate 

and distinct cause action for the spouse and dependent children 

of the deceased, independent of any negligence of the decedent. 

It explained that "the threshold determination for the awarding 

of damages in a wrongful death action is the existence of 

liability for the wrongful death." Id. at 496. Additionally, 

it stated that the threshold determination is made by examining 

Wis. Stat. § 895.03, which provides that an action exists if the 

decedent could have recovered had he lived. Id. Thus, because 

the decedent could not have recovered had he lived, his widow 

and minor children did not have a cause of action premised upon 

Wis. Stat. § 895.04. Id. The court's analysis focused on the 
No. 2012AP320 

12

fact that "sec. 895.03 must not be read in isolation from sec. 

895.04." Id.

¶22 Likewise, in Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260, 

294 N.W.2d 437 (1980), the court declined to consider the two 

statutes separately. There, the court considered the question 

of whether punitive damages were recoverable under Wisconsin's 

wrongful death statute. Id. at 312. After quoting Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.03, the court proceeded to quote Wis. Stat. § 895.04(4) 

and (5), and determined that the damages recoverable were 

limited by those sections. Id. at 312-13.

¶23 Wisconsin courts have also uniformly applied Wis. 

Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04 as one unit, which together create a 

cause of action for wrongful death in Wisconsin. See

Bartholomew v. Wis. Patients Comp. Fund, 2006 WI 91, ¶55, 293 

Wis. 2d 38, 717 N.W.2d 216 (citing both statutes for the 

proposition that "[a] wrongful death claim refers to the 

statutory cause of action belonging to named persons for 

injuries suffered postdeath."); Cogger, 35 Wis. 2d at 353 ("[a]

cause of action for wrongful death is purely statutory, being 

derived from sec. 895.03, Stats. (formerly sec. 331.03, Stats. 

1959) and sec. 895.04 (formerly sec. 331.04, Stats. 1959)."); 

Herro v. Steidl, 255 Wis. 65, 67, 37 N.W.2d 874 (1949) ("Sec. 

331.03, Stats., creates for the benefit of persons named in sec. 

331.04(1)(a) a cause of action for the wrongful death of a 

person."). Accordingly, our case law strongly supports 

interpreting Wis. Stat. § 895.04 as applicable only in wrongful 

death causes of action arising under Wis. Stat. § 895.03.
No. 2012AP320 

13

¶24 This interpretation is also suggested by the statutory 

history of Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04. These statutes were 

enacted together in 1857 as sections 1 and 2 of the same 

statute, chapter 71. Ch. 71, Laws of 1857. Section 1 of 

Chapter 71 (which became Wis. Stat. § 895.03) created a cause of 

action for wrongful death in Wisconsin. Section 2 of chapter 71 

(which became Wis. Stat. § 895.04), stated that "Every such 

action" shall be brought by a personal representative of the 

deceased and that the damages awarded shall not exceed $5,000. 

Ch. 71, Laws of 1857. By stating "Every such action," section 2 

was explicitly referring to the wrongful death cause of action 

created in section 1. 

¶25 The language from section 2 explicitly referring to 

section 1 was retained after chapter 71 was separated into two 

statutes and renumbered as Wis. Stat. §§ 4255 and 4256 in 1878, 

and later when those statutes were renumbered as Wis. Stat. 

§§ 331.03 and 331.04 in 1925. Even after Wis. Stat. § 331.031 

(permitting recovery from the estate of the wrongdoer) was 

inserted between the two statutes in 1939, Wis. Stat. § 331.04 

still began "Every such action . . . ." Wis. Stat. § 331.04 

(1939). That language remained until 1949, when Wis. Stat. 

§ 331.04 was amended to read "An action for wrongful death may 

be brought . . . ," in an apparent attempt at clarification. 

Ch. 548, Laws of 1949. Wisconsin Stat. §§ 331.03 and 331.04 

were renumbered as Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04 in 1965. Ch. 

22, Laws of 1965. The current Wis. Stat. § 895.04 begins with 

the same language.
No. 2012AP320 

14

¶26 Construing the statutes together is further supported 

by a canon of statutory construction which dictates that 

statutes created together and on the same topic be read in pari 

materia. See Madison Metro. Sch. Dist. v. Circuit Court, 2011 

WI 72, ¶101, 336 Wis. 2d 95, 800 N.W.2d 442 (statutes dealing 

with the same subject must be interpreted in pari materia); 

State v. Clausen, 105 Wis. 2d 231, 244, 313 N.W.2d 819 (1982)

("Sections of statutes relating to the same subject matter must 

be construed in pari materia."). As Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 and 

895.04 were created together and address the same subject, 

wrongful death, they must be read together. Accordingly, we 

determine that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 cannot apply separately from 

Wis. Stat. § 895.03.

¶27 Our analysis is further bolstered by the fact that the 

Michigan equivalents to the provisions in Wis. Stat. §§ 895.03 

and 895.04 are contained in a single statute, Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 600.2922. State Farm admitted that if the provisions in Wis. 

Stat. §§ 895.03 and 895.04 were still contained in a single 

statute, it could not argue that they should be split and the 

limits on damages applied separately from Wisconsin's cause of 

action for wrongful death. However, if we were to adopt State 

Farm's position that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 could apply, we would 

have to split up Michigan's statute. Such a result would 

violate the principle of in pari materia.

¶28 Here, the facts dictate that neither Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.03 nor Wis. Stat. § 895.04 applies to Waranka's cause of 

action. It is undisputed that the actions causing Nicholas' 
No. 2012AP320 

15

death occurred in Michigan. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.03 provides a 

cause of action for deaths caused only in Wisconsin and 

accordingly is not applicable here. Because Wis. Stat. § 895.04 

cannot be separated from Wis. Stat. § 895.03, its limitations on 

damages also do not apply to Waranka's action.8

IV

¶29 Having determined that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 cannot 

apply separately from Wis. Stat. § 895.03, we turn next to the 

issue of whether Michigan or Wisconsin law applies to the 

damages in Waranka's action. As background we note that despite 

the inapplicability of Wis. Stat. § 895.03 to deaths occurring 

outside of Wisconsin, an individual may bring a wrongful death 

action premised upon a death occurring in another state pursuant 

to that state's statutes. Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609 

(1951). 

¶30 In Hughes, the United States Supreme Court reversed 

the dismissal of a wrongful death action brought in Wisconsin 

for a death occurring in Illinois. Id. The Wisconsin Supreme 

Court had affirmed the dismissal, which was based on the 

language in Wis. Stat. § 895.03. Id. at 610. The United States 

Supreme Court rejected that analysis and determined that the 

Full Faith and Credit Clause required Wisconsin to recognize the 

right of action created by the Illinois wrongful death statute. 

 

8 Neither party appealed the circuit court's determination 

that Wisconsin's law on comparative negligence, Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.045, applies to this case. Unlike Wis. Stat. § 895.04, we 

observe that Wis. Stat. § 895.045 is not limited to wrongful 

death actions. 
No. 2012AP320 

16

Id. at 611 (citing Art. IV, sec. 1 of the United States 

Constitution). Consequently, litigants may bring suits in 

Wisconsin based on a death caused in another state pursuant to 

that state's wrongful death statutes based on full faith and 

credit.

¶31 It is in this context that Waranka's case was brought, 

leaving us to determine which state's laws apply. When choosing 

between multiple state laws, the threshold question for a court 

is "whether a genuine conflict exists between Wisconsin law and 

the law of the other state." Sharp v. Case Corp., 227 Wis. 2d 

1, 10-11, 595 N.W.2d 380 (1999). If there is a conflict then 

the court will proceed to a conflict analysis which considers 

first whether the other state has only minimal contacts with the 

action. Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2004 WI 39, ¶24, 270 

Wis. 2d 356, 677 N.W.2d 298. If more than minimal contacts 

exist, the court will then proceed to consider the 

predictability of results, maintenance of interstate and 

international order, simplification of the judicial task,

advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and 

application of the better rule of law. Id. at ¶25.

¶32 State Farm asserts that a conflict exists because Wis. 

Stat. § 895.04 limits the amount of non-economic damages a 

plaintiff can recover in a wrongful death action, and Mich. 

Comp. Laws § 600.2922(6) does not. It contends that due to this 

case's limited contacts with Michigan, Wisconsin law should 

prevail under a conflicts analysis. Waranka argues that no 

conflict exists because Wisconsin's wrongful death law applies 
No. 2012AP320 

17

to deaths caused only in Wisconsin. Accordingly, Waranka 

maintains that no conflict analysis is necessary.

¶33 We agree with Waranka. Michigan Comp. Laws § 600.2922 

creates a cause of action for wrongful death in Michigan. The 

statute permits juries to award damages that are "fair and 

equitable." Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2922(6). Wisconsin Stat. 

§ 895.04 differs from the Michigan statute in that it places a 

monetary cap on the amount of non-economic damages a plaintiff 

may recover. However, as discussed above, Wis. Stat. § 895.04 

does not apply independently from Wis. Stat. § 895.03, and Wis. 

Stat. § 895.03 does not apply to deaths caused outside of the 

state. Thus, there is no applicable wrongful death statute from 

Wisconsin that conflicts with Michigan's wrongful death statute. 

¶34 The federal district court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin reached the same conclusion when addressing a similar 

scenario. Shaver v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 284 F. Supp. 701 (E.D. 

Wis. 1968). In Shaver, a widow brought an action in her own 

name and in her own right, premised on her husband's death in 

Michigan. Id. at 701. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing 

that under Michigan's wrongful death law only the personal 

representative of the deceased could sue for wrongful death. 

Id. The widow contended that Wisconsin law should control and 

that Wis. Stat. § 895.04 authorized her to bring the action. 

Id. at 702. Disagreeing with the widow, the court stated: "By 

express legislative direction, Wisconsin does not apply its 

wrongful death statute, in whole or in part, to a death caused 

outside of the state of Wisconsin. Thus, there really is no 
No. 2012AP320 

18

conflict of laws question here." Id. Accordingly, the court 

determined that Michigan law governed and dismissed the suit. 

Id. Shaver is persuasive and we follow its analysis here.

¶35 In sum, we determine that there is no need to conduct 

a conflict of laws analysis. Michigan's statute is the only 

applicable statute under which a wrongful death action premised 

on a death caused in Michigan can be maintained in Wisconsin. 

Here, where the cause of Nicholas' death was the snowmobile 

accident in Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2922 applies in 

full.

V

¶36 We conclude that the limitations on wrongful death 

actions in Wis. Stat. § 895.04 necessarily refer to wrongful 

death actions created by Wis. Stat. § 895.03. The language of 

the statutes, our case law interpreting both Wis. Stat. 

§§ 895.03 and 895.04, their statutory history, and the canon of 

statutory construction, in pari materia, dictate that Wis. Stat. 

§ 895.04 cannot be applied separately from Wis. Stat. § 895.03. 

¶37 We further conclude that because Wis. Stat. § 895.03 

does not apply to deaths caused outside the state of Wisconsin, 

there is no conflict between Wisconsin law and Michigan law. 

Only Michigan law applies and thus we need not undertake a 

conflict of laws analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the court of 

appeals.

By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 

affirmed.
No. 2012AP320 

1