Wisconsin: a board's deferred-maintenance decisions can still be an insured 'occurrence'
Wisconsin: a board's deferred-maintenance decisions can still be an insured 'occurrence'
2026-09-21 · Wisconsin · Courts
Owners at a Racine County condominium sued their association over years of water coming through the walls. The association's insurer argued there was no coverage because the board's maintenance decisions were deliberate. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals published the opposite answer.
McLaughlin v. Gaslight Pointe Condominium Association, Ltd., Appeal No. 2023AP1011, was decided April 17, 2024 and published as 2024 WI App 30. Judge Neubauer wrote for a panel with Presiding Judge Gundrum and Judge Lazar. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: no coverage under the Directors & Officers errors-and-omissions endorsement, but potential coverage under the commercial general liability form.1
What the owners alleged
The claim was breach of the declaration. The association is obliged by its governing documents and by Wis. Stat. ch. 703 to maintain and repair the common elements; the owners alleged it had not.
The specifics, at ¶6, are the ordinary vocabulary of a deferred-maintenance dispute: the board “has established a pattern of neglecting reports of structural damage to the buildings[,] engaging unqualified contractors[,] and failing to supervise work,” and “established a practice of denying responsibility for the maintenance of certain common elements[,] e.g.[,] garage doors.”
A 2018 inspection report documenting rot and problems with siding, flashing, sheathing and framing sat in the record (¶5) — four years before suit.
The coverage question
A commercial general liability policy covers “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” which means an accident. Auto-Owners' position, accepted by the circuit court, was that a board choosing how and whether to repair is making volitional decisions, and volitional decisions are not accidents.
¶2 rejects that framing:
“The form provides coverage for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ or accident. As our supreme court recently recognized, an intentional act by an insured can lead to an occurrence—an accident—that causes property damage. 5 Walworth, LLC v. Engerman Contracting, Inc., 2023 WI 51, ¶35. Here, while Gaslight allegedly made certain decisions regarding building maintenance and repairs, a reasonable jury could conclude that those decisions were not made to intentionally allow water to continue to infiltrate the buildings. That continued water intrusion could be an accident and constitute an ‘occurrence’ that caused ‘property damage’—physical injury to the Owners' tangible property.”
The rule, stated precisely
¶30 is the sentence that decides these cases in Wisconsin:
“Auto-Owners' (and the circuit court's) focus on Gaslight's ‘volitional’ decisions as the occurrence is out-of-step with Kalchthaler, American Girl, 5 Walworth, and Riverback Farms. ‘The focus is on whether the injury or damages was foreseeable or expected, not on whether the action that caused the damages was intended.’… Though Gaslight's decisions regarding maintenance and repair are alleged to have been intentional, the record indicates those decisions led to the continued water intrusion, which caused alleged property damage.”
¶29 gives the structure the court applies: “(1) an insured's conduct leads to (2) an event that (3) causes damage.” The intentional decision is step one. The occurrence is step two. An insurer that collapses the two is asking the wrong question under Wisconsin law.
The half the association lost, and why it matters more than the half it won
The D&O errors-and-omissions endorsement covered none of this. ¶3: “The endorsement's insuring agreement applies to a limited category of compensatory damages and is also subject to an exclusion for ‘property damage.’”
The association also tried to characterise the owners' association fees and homeowner's insurance premiums as damages the endorsement would reach. ¶49 refused: “Gaslight has failed to show how the homeowner's association fees and homeowner's insurance are compensation for any loss the McLaughlins suffered and, thus, ‘damages.’… Presumably, the obligation to pay those expenses arose out of the McLaughlins' status as owners of a unit at Gaslight Pointe.”
The practical upshot is a mismatch between what associations buy and what they get sued for. A Wisconsin condominium association's most likely serious claim is a failure-to-maintain claim producing physical damage to units. That claim lands on the CGL, not on the D&O policy that boards most often think of as their protection. Our Wisconsin insurance requirements page covers what the two products do.
The evidentiary lesson inside the facts
The 2018 inspection report is the quiet centre of this case. It documented rot, siding, flashing, sheathing and framing problems; it became the document that dated the board's knowledge; and it surfaced in litigation four years later.
Wisconsin imposes no statutory reserve-study requirement and no condominium building-inspection mandate, so the reports that exist are the ones an association commissioned voluntarily. Once commissioned, they are discoverable, and they establish when a board learned of a defect. That is a real consideration in how Wisconsin associations approach reserve studies and condominium safety inspections, neither of which state law requires.
The template this sets for owners
The theory that survived here is narrow and repeatable: the declaration and bylaws obligate the association to maintain and repair the common elements; it did not; the resulting damage is physical injury to the owner's property. ¶7 records the owners' framing as “a breach of Gaslight Pointe's governing declaration and bylaws, which require Gaslight to maintain and repair common areas and elements of the condominium.” Relief sought was damages plus an injunction compelling repair.
Because the claim sounds in the declaration rather than in tort, it also sidesteps the economic loss doctrine that defeats negligence theories in Wisconsin construction-defect litigation.
What to watch next
As published authority, McLaughlin is now the Wisconsin starting point whenever an insurer argues a board's deliberate choices take a claim outside “occurrence.” It rests on 5 Walworth, a 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, so the doctrine beneath it is current rather than legacy. The open question it does not reach is allocation: where a single water-intrusion claim spans multiple policy years and multiple carriers, McLaughlin settles that there is an occurrence but not whose occurrence it is.
Related Wisconsin HOA Topics
Stay on top of Wisconsin HOA law
Every week: new Wisconsin legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.