Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
Chapter 893 - Limitations of commencement of actions and proceedings; procedure for claims against governmental units.
893.19 - Limitation when person out of state.

893.19 Limitation when person out of state.
(1) If a person is out of this state when the cause of action accrues against the person an action may be commenced within the terms of this chapter respectively limited after the person returns or removes to this state. But the foregoing provision shall not apply to any case where, at the time the cause of action accrues, neither the party against nor the party in favor of whom the same accrues is a resident of this state; and if, after a cause of action accrues against any person, he or she departs from and resides out of this state the time of absence is not any part of the time limited for the commencement of an action; provided, that no foreign corporation which files with the department of financial institutions, or any other state official or body, pursuant to the requirements of any applicable statute of this state, an instrument appointing a registered agent as provided in ch. 180, a resident or any state official or body of this state, its attorney or agent, on whom, pursuant to such instrument or any applicable statute, service of process may be made in connection with such cause of action, is deemed a person out of this state within the meaning of this section for the period during which such appointment is effective, excluding from such period the time of absence from this state of any registered agent, resident agent or attorney so appointed who departs from and resides outside of this state.
(2) This section shall not apply to any person who, while out of this state, may be subjected to personal jurisdiction in the courts of this state on any of the grounds specified in s. 801.05.
History: 1971 c. 154; 1977 c. 176; 1979 c. 323; 1995 a. 27.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.30 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893 and revised for purposes of clarity only. [Bill 326-A]
The validity of the defense that a North Carolina limitation statute barred the action was determined in light of analysis of North Carolina products liability case law. Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. H.O. Inc., 63 Wis. 2d 54, 216 N.W.2d 239 (1974).

Structure Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations