Waranka v. Wadena Insurance, 832 N.W.2d 133

Nicholas Waranka died in a snowmobile accident in Michigan; Sharon, as personal representative, pursued a Wisconsin probate estate.
Four of the defendants and insurers are Wisconsin residents; some parties were joined under Wisconsin's direct action statute, Wis. Stat. § 632.24 (2011-12).
Sharon sought to apply Michigan wrongful death law to the damages issues in the Wisconsin case, arguing Wisconsin § 895.03 and § 895.04 do not control out-of-state deaths.
The circuit court recognized Michigan's wrongful death action but held Wisconsin law applied to other issues, including damages, beneficiaries, and limitations.
On interlocutory appeal, the court acknowledged Michigan law provides a wrongful death remedy, but disputed which state's attendant provisions govern the claim.
The court ultimately held Michigan's wrongful death statute applies in its entirety, and Wisconsin's § 895.04 limitations do not apply; the matter is remanded for proceedings under Michigan law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wisconsin § 895.03 applies to out-of-state death	Out-of-state death means no Wisconsin action under § 895.03 exists.	Wisconsin law should govern the claim’s attendant provisions regardless of where death occurred.	Michigan law applies; Wisconsin § 895.03 does not govern.
Whether § 895.04 terms apply when no Wisconsin action exists	If no Wisconsin wrongful death action under § 895.03, § 895.04 terms do not apply.	§ 895.04 terms are autonomous and applicable regardless of § 895.03 viability.	§ 895.04 does not apply to this out-of-state death; Michigan law governs the remedies.
Which state's law governs the wrongful death claim and its attendant provisions	There is no genuine conflict; Michigan law should apply in full.	Wisconsin conflict-of-laws rules apply, potentially requiring Wisconsin terms to govern.	No conflict; Michigan’s statute applies in its entirety; Wisconsin law is not applied.
Whether the Michigan statute should be applied in its entirety as a whole	Michigan § 600.2922 covers all aspects of the action and should govern completely.	Wisconsin courts should not import Michigan law wholesale when Wisconsin has some applicable framework.	Michigan § 600.2922 applies in its entirety; Wisconsin’s attendant provisions do not apply.

Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609 (1951) (full faith and credit for another state's public acts in absence of Wisconsin law)
Shaver v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 284 F. Supp. 701 (E.D. Wis. 1968) (no conflict where Wisconsin does not apply to out-of-state death; no need for Wisconsin choice-of-law rules)
Harris v. Kelley, 70 Wis. 2d 242 (1975) (interplay between § 895.03 and § 895.04; damages tied to viability of the action)
Bartholomew v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2006 WI 91 (2006) (two statutes must be read in pari materia; § 895.04 linked to § 895.03)
Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d 260 (1980) (limitations on punitive damages and relation to § 895.04)
Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg, 130 Wis.2d 464 (1986) (reading § 895.03 with § 895.04; statutory relationship)
Cogger v. Trudell, 35 Wis.2d 350 (1967) (wrongful death action is statutory and derived from §§ 895.03 and 895.04)
Miller v. Luther, 170 Wis.2d 429 (Ct. App. 1992) (§ 895.04 limitations premised on viable § 895.03 action)
Petta v. ABC Ins. Co., 2005 WI 18 (2005) (statutory framework and interrelation of § 895.03 and § 895.04)