Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
Chapter 788 - Arbitration.
788.01 - Arbitration clauses in contracts enforceable.

788.01 Arbitration clauses in contracts enforceable. A provision in any written contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or out of the refusal to perform the whole or any part of the contract, or an agreement in writing between 2 or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. This chapter shall not apply to contracts between employers and employees, or between employers and associations of employees, except as provided in s. 111.10, nor to agreements to arbitrate disputes under s. 292.63 (6s) or 230.44 (4) (bm).
History: 1979 c. 32 s. 64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.01; 1993 a. 16; 1997 a. 237, 254; 2001 a. 38; 2013 a. 20.
An insurer's refusal to either pay the plaintiff's claim under the uninsured motorist provision of its automobile policy or to submit to arbitration under an arbitration clause that could be invoked by either party constituted a breach of the contract and a waiver of the insurer's right to later demand arbitration. Collicott v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 68 Wis. 2d 115, 227 N.W.2d 668 (1975).
Failure to comply with provisions of ch. 298 [now this chapter] constitutes waiver of the contractual right to arbitration. State ex rel. Carl v. Charles, 71 Wis. 2d 85, 237 N.W.2d 29 (1976).
If the intent of the parties is not clearly expressed, the court favors construing an arbitration agreement as statutory rather than common law arbitration. Stradinger v. City of Whitewater, 89 Wis. 2d 19, 277 N.W.2d 827 (1979).
Although courts have common law jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awards generally, they cannot enforce an award against the state absent express legislative authorization. State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Ass'n v. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 96 Wis. 2d 492, 292 N.W.2d 657 (Ct. App. 1980). But see State v. P.G. Miron Construction Co., 181 Wis. 2d 1045, 512 N.W.2d 499 (1994).
Municipal labor arbitration is within the scope of this chapter. Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee Sewerage Commission, 107 Wis. 2d 590, 321 N.W.2d 309 (Ct. App. 1982).
Insurance coverage is a proper matter for arbitration. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seidenspinner, 181 Wis. 2d 950, 512 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1994).
Sovereign immunity is not applicable to arbitration, and there need not be specific statutory authority for the state to be subject to the arbitration provisions of this chapter. State v. P.G. Miron Construction Co., 181 Wis. 2d 1045, 512 N.W.2d 499 (1994).
Preclusion doctrines preventing rehearing of identical claims are applicable to a limited extent in arbitration cases. Dane County v. Dane County Union Local 65, 210 Wis. 2d 267, 565 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0359.
Whether the parties agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law for the courts to decide. Kimberly Area School District v. Zdanovec, 222 Wis. 2d 27, 586 N.W.2d 41 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-0783.
The trial court erred in ruling that the unavailability of the arbitrator named in an agreement resulted in a dissolution of the agreement's arbitration provision. When the primary purpose of the dispute resolution provision in the agreement is to arbitrate disputes that arise between the parties, the unavailability of the named arbitrator does not nullify an arbitration provision. Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Education Ass'n Council, 2005 WI App 180, 285 Wis. 2d 737, 703 N.W.2d 711, 04-1053.
The designation of a specific arbitration service and the incorporation of its rules governing all aspects of arbitration was integral to the parties' alternate dispute resolution (ADR) agreement to a degree as integral as the agreement to arbitrate itself. In light of a consent judgment effectively barring the arbitration service from arbitration, the ADR agreement failed altogether. Riley v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 2013 WI App 9, 345 Wis. 2d 804, 826 N.W.2d 398, 12-0311.
This section provides that a contractual provision to arbitrate is irrevocable “except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract." No Wisconsin or federal case establishes that, once arbitration is contracted as the forum for dispute resolution, parties can never later contract for an alternative forum for dispute resolution. Fundamental principles of freedom to contract support the proposition that parties can subsequently contract to modify the terms of a previous contract. This chapter does not limit such freedom to contract. Another contract that clearly and expressly supersedes a first contract is grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC, 2018 WI 112, 384 Wis. 2d 669, 920 N.W.2d 767, 16-0601.
Arbitration is a matter of contract between private parties who enjoy that freedom. A circuit court has no authority to halt a contractually agreed upon arbitration. The circuit court may act only to ensure the parties who contracted for arbitration abide by their contractual agreement. State ex rel. CityDeck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court, 2019 WI 15, 385 Wis. 2d 516, 922 N.W.2d 832, 18-0291.
While a court's authority under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration may be considerable, it isn't unconditional. A court should decide for itself whether 9 USC 1 of the Act's “contracts of employment" exclusion applies before ordering arbitration. After all, to invoke its statutory powers to stay litigation and compel arbitration according to a contract's terms, a court must first know whether the contract itself falls within or beyond the boundaries of the Act. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 532, 202 L. Ed. 2d 536 (2019).
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) precludes states from singling out arbitration provisions for suspect status. When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA. This section prohibits outright enforcing arbitration agreements in employment disputes, which means that it is displaced by the FAA. Nevill v. Johnson Controls International PLC, 364 F. Supp. 3d 932 (2019).
Commercial Arbitration Agreements: Let the Signers Beware. Farmer. 61 MLR 466 (1978).