Southport Commons, LLC v. DOT, 944 N.W.2d 46

Southport Commons owns ~45 acres near I-94; DOT’s 2008–2009 frontage-road relocation bisected the property.
A 2016 post-construction survey and wetland delineation showed a significant increase in wetlands attributable to DOT’s project; Southport alleges it had no prior knowledge of that damage.
Southport filed a notice of claim in March 2017 and later sued DOT for inverse condemnation seeking just compensation.
DOT moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Southport’s claim was time-barred by Wis. Stat. § 88.87(2)(c) because the three-year limitations period runs from when the damage "occurred" (at the latest in 2009).
Southport argued the limitations period runs from discovery of the damage (relying on Pruim v. Town of Ashford); the circuit court granted DOT’s motion and Southport appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the § 88.87(2)(c) three-year filing period begin?	The period begins when the damage is discovered (Pruim).	The statute’s plain text triggers the period when the damage "occurred."	Affirmed: the period begins when damage "occurred." Pruim is not controlling where occurrence and discovery are not contemporaneous; legislative change to 3 years was to allow discovery time, not create an open‑ended discovery trigger.

168 Wis. 2d 114, 483 N.W.2d 242 (Ct. App. 1992) (Pruim) (addressed contemporaneous occurrence/discovery; court previously treated "occurred" and "discovered" as interchangeable where they coincided)
220 Wis. 2d 855, 584 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1998) (Lins v. Blau) (interpreting 1994 extension from 90 days to 3 years as intended to give owners sufficient time to discover damage)
119 Wis. 2d 722, 351 N.W.2d 156 (1984) (Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Emp’rs Ins. Co.) (defines ordinary meaning of "occurrence" as something that takes place)
271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty.) (statutory interpretation principles; plain-meaning rule)