Opinion ID: 1427203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The privity requirement for warranty claims still exists under Wisconsin law.

Text: Finally, St. Paul claims that Wisconsin law is evolving toward eliminating the privity requirement for remote purchasers of products. St. Paul believes this requirement is unfair and outmoded, and may leave remote users without a remedy given Wisconsin's recent expansion of the economic loss doctrine, which bars tort claims sounding in contract. See Daanen & Janssen v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis.2d 395, 397, 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998). St. Paul also notes that other states have eliminated similar privity requirements. See, e.g., Spring Motors Distrib., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 N.J. 555, 489 A.2d 660, 676 (1985). Whether fair or not, the most recent pronouncement by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on this issue suggests that privity of contract still applies for warranty claims like the one here, even if there is no corresponding tort claim. See Daanen, 216 Wis.2d at 402, 573 N.W.2d 842 (economic loss doctrine bars tort claims even when there is no privity of contract). We decline St. Paul's invitation to step ahead of our colleagues on the Wisconsin courts to change the status quo. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1093 (7th Cir.1999) (Lacking any inherent power to make state law such as a state court might have ... a federal court must be careful to avoid the temptation to impose upon a state what it, or other jurisdictions, might consider to be wise policy.). It is far from clear that the privity requirement leads us to an unfair outcome here, as St. Paul could have avoided its troubles simply by suing the general contractor, Mortenson, with whom Johnson Bank had contracted.