## Facts

- Frank G. Guertin, a Wisconsin resident employed as a truck driver, was injured on February 15, 1982, when he slipped and fell from a semi-tractor’s fuel tank in Illinois.
- The semi-tractor was designed/manufactured by International Harvester, which did business in Wisconsin.
- Ryder Truck Rental did business in Wisconsin and sold or leased the semi-tractor to Guertin’s Wisconsin employer, JWI Trucking, Inc.
- A Ryder mechanic, Edward Krissman, maintained and serviced the semi-tractor in Wisconsin.
- Guertin sued in Wisconsin circuit court on October 22, 1984, alleging negligence and strict products liability against various defendants connected to the tractor’s design, leasing, servicing, and insurance.
- Defendants moved for dismissal/summary judgment, arguing Wisconsin’s borrowing statute required application of Illinois’ shorter two-year personal-injury limitations period.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the action as time-barred; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin’s borrowing statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.07(1), treated the tort claims as a “foreign cause of action” solely because the injury occurred in Illinois, requiring application of Illinois’ shorter limitations period.
2. Whether applying the borrowing statute to Wisconsin residents whose injuries occur out of state violates equal protection under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.
- It held the claims were a “foreign cause of action” because the injury occurred in Illinois, so the Illinois two-year limitations period applied.
- Because Guertin filed suit more than two years after the injury, the action was time-barred.
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge, applying rational basis review and finding the statute rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wis. Stat. § 893.07(1), when a cause of action is “foreign,” Wisconsin courts apply the shorter limitations period between Wisconsin’s and the state where the cause of action arose.
- For tort claims under § 893.07(1), the cause of action arises where the injury occurs; an out-of-state injury renders the claim “foreign.”
- Courts do not apply a “most significant contacts” analysis to determine whether a claim is “foreign” for purposes of the borrowing statute when the statutory text provides a location-of-injury rule.
- The borrowing statute does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to legitimate interests, including discouraging forum shopping and limiting stale claims, and it applies without suspect classifications or infringement of fundamental rights.

## Conclusion

Wisconsin’s supreme court held that a tort claim is “foreign” for borrowing-statute purposes when the injury occurs outside Wisconsin, requiring use of the shorter out-of-state limitations period; it also upheld the statute against an equal protection challenge, leaving the plaintiff’s suit dismissed as untimely.


Guertin v. Harbour Assurance Co. of Bermuda, Ltd., 141 Wis. 2d 622, 415 N.W.2d 831 (Wis. 1987)