Court Opinion

ID: 9518663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:58:08.757553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:43.615350
License: Public Domain

JON E WILCOX, J.
¶ 44. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the court's determination on summary judgment in this case. However, I disagree with the court's conclusion on the availability of treble damages. Under the plain language of the statute, treble damages are not available for a civil action for theft by contractor under Wis. Stat. § 779.02(5) (1999-2000).1 For that reason, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 45. This case presents us with a question of statutory interpretation. When we interpret a statute, our primary purpose is to discern the intent of the legislature. Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2001 WI 86, ¶ 14, 245 Wis. 2d 1, 628 N.W.2d 893. To determine this intent, we look first to the plain language of the statute. Id. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we do not look beyond the statutory language to ascertain its meaning. Id.
¶ 46. The statutory language here is straightforward. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.80 states:
(1) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of intentional conduct... that is prohibited *440under s. 943.01, 943.20, 943.21, 943.24, 943.26, 943.34, 943.395, 943.41, 943.50 or 943.61, or by reason of intentional conduct... that is prohibited under s. 943.201, has a cause of action against the person who caused the damage or loss.
(3) If the plaintiff prevails in a civil action under sub. (1), he or she may recover all of the following:
(a) Treble damages.
This provision clearly lists the statutory violations under which treble damages -will be available. The statute at issue here, Wis. Stat. § 779.02, as the majority points out, is clearly not among them. Majority op. at ¶ 22.
¶ 47. Under the rule of expressio unius est exclu-sio alterius, when the legislature specifically enumerates provisions in a statute, this court presumes that the legislature intended to exclude other non-included provisions. Georgina G. v. Terry M., 184 Wis. 2d 492, 512, 516 N.W.2d 678 (1994). When enacting a statute, the legislature is also presumed to act with knowledge of existing statutes. H.F. v. T.F., 168 Wis. 2d 62, 69, 483 N.W.2d 803 (1992). Therefore, we must infer that the legislature was aware of the cause of action for theft by contractor under Wis. Stat. § 779.02, and refused to include it in the treble damages statute.
¶ 48. As the majority points out, the treble damages statute is punitive rather than remedial, and it must therefore be strictly construed. Majority op. at ¶ 21 (citing John Mohr & Sons, Inc. v. Jahnke, 55 Wis. 2d 402, 411, 198 N.W.2d 363 (1972)). This further leads me to the conclusion that we cannot read a cause of *441action for treble damages into the statute where the legislature did not choose to include it. Thus, I would conclude that the treble damages remedy is not available for a civil action for theft by contractor.
¶ 49. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.