Wisconsin State Legislature Approves Change to Venue Statute

On February 11, 2026, the Wisconsin Legislature passed Assembly Bill 225, a proposed revision to the Wisconsin Statutes that addresses where a defendant resides or does substantial business for purposes of determining venue. This change prevents forum shopping by limiting the counties a corporate defendant is considered to reside or do substantial business in. The statute currently reads:

801.50 (2) Except as otherwise provided by statute, venue in civil actions or special proceedings shall be as follows:

(a) In the county where the claim arose;

(b) In the county where the real or tangible personal property, or some part thereof, which is the subject of the claim, is situated;

(c) In the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business; or

(d) If the provisions under par. (a) to (c) do not apply, then venue shall be in any county designated by the plaintiff.

Under the language of this statue, plaintiffs can file suit practically anywhere in the state by arguing that a defendant does substantial business in that county, making venue proper. Courts have given significant deference to plaintiffs in this regard, and cases are filed and remain in counties that have no connection to the incident or the parties.

In one example provided by an attorney in support of the Bill, a two-vehicle accident occurred in Milwaukee County. The plaintiff lived in Illinois, and the defendant trucking company had a principal place of business in Fond du Lac County. Plaintiff filed suit in Ashland County (nearly 300 miles from Fond du Lac and almost 400 miles from Milwaukee) because the trucking company website stated that they served all of Wisconsin.  A motion for change of venue to either Fond du Lac or Milwaukee was denied.

Sec. 801.50(2)(c) has also been used in tandem with Wisconsin’s Direct-Action Statute to further expand venue options for plaintiffs. Since an insurer can be named as a party to an action, a plaintiff can file suit in any county in the state where the insurer does “substantial business.” This means that any insured defendant can be haled into court in any county where their insurer issues policies.

The new statutory language, which is still awaiting signature from Governor Evers, creates two additional subsections to Sec. 801.50 and reads as follows:

801.50 (3c) In determining whether a county is a proper venue under sub. (2) (c), the court may not consider the participation of any of the following:

(a) A party joined to the civil action or special proceeding pursuant to s. 803.03.

(b) An insurer joined to the civil action or special proceeding pursuant to s. 803.04.

801.50 (3g) For the purposes of sub. (2) (c), a corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity shall be deemed to reside in the place of incorporation or organization, and a corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity shall be deemed to be doing substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business.

This proposed revision adds necessary guardrails to venue selection. It clarifies that when an insurer is included in a lawsuit only because it issued a policy, it cannot be used to determine venue. It also prevents businesses and corporate defendants, like the example trucking company, from being brought into unrelated and unfamiliar jurisdictions simply because they operate on a state-wide scale. These changes, if signed into law, would ensure that the venue of the lawsuit is genuinely related to the claim, the property, or the defendants. It promotes fairness for defendants and does not limit plaintiffs’ ability to file suit in any relevant county. It also supports overall judicial economy by streamlining the venue determination process for courts and preventing plaintiffs from flocking to favorable counties with already high caseloads.