Court Opinion

ID: 9690318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:04:41.854333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:55.414758
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

(concurring).

¶ 78. I agree with the majority that given this court's holding in Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2001 WI 86, ¶ 62, 245 Wis. 2d 1, 628 N.W.2d 893, the distinction between statutes of limitations and statues of repose outlined in Leverence v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 158 Wis. 2d 64, 90-93, 462 N.W.2d 218 (Ct. App. 1990) is no longer good *272law. However, I write separately to emphasize that I feel that I have no choice but to affirm, given the majority decision in Landis.
¶ 79. In Landis, the majority of this court concluded that the phrase "any applicable statute of limitations" in Wis. Stat. § 655.44(4) applied equally to both statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. Landis, 245 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶ 60-61. In a dissent, joined by Justices William A. Bablitch and Jon E Wilcox, I disagreed with the majority's conclusion and took issue with the majority's contention that the distinction between the two statutes was a matter of judicial labeling, since our opinion in Aicher v. WI Patients Compensation Fund, 2000 WI 98, ¶¶ 26-28, 237 Wis. 2d 99, 613 N.W.2d 849, only a year earlier, reached the opposite conclusion. Landis, 245 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶ 83-89.
¶ 80. Because the majority prevailed in Landis, I feel bound to follow it in the present case. My decision to join the majority now is dictated by the holding in Landis that language quite similar to that at issue here applied to both statutes of limitations and statutes of repose.
¶ 81. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.
¶ 82. I am authorized to state that Justice JON E WILCOX joins this concurrence.