Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 132

Motor vehicle dealers

Topics: Motor vehicle: Dealers and finance companies

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    May 17, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, each manufacturer, importer, distributor, and dealer of motor vehicles that wishes to sell motor vehicles in this state must be licensed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The manufacturer, importer, or distributor may have its license revoked and may be liable for pecuniary losses and attorney fees incurred by the dealer, if the manufacturer, importer, or distributor takes certain actions with respect to a dealer that have been enumerated as violations.

This bill enumerates several additional actions of a manufacturer, importer, or distributor with respect to a dealer as violations. These newly designated violations are: 1) conditioning certain agreements or approvals on the dealer's entry into a contract that allows the manufacturer, importer, or distributor to control the disposition or use of the dealer's dealership facilities; 2) unreasonably conditioning certain agreements or approvals on the dealer's improvement of the dealer's dealership facilities at a substantial cost to the dealer; 3) unreasonably requiring a dealer to maintain exclusive facilities for a particular line make of motor vehicles;

Read the full summary

4) taking certain adverse actions against a dealer for charging a lawful service fee to a retail customer; 5) taking certain adverse actions against a dealer because, without the dealer's knowledge that the purchaser intended to export the motor vehicle, a motor vehicle purchaser exported a motor vehicle; 6) with certain exceptions, requiring a dealer to provide the manufacturer, importer, or distributor with information regarding the dealer's retail customers; 7) transferring nonpublic customer information obtained from a dealer to another dealer or otherwise using nonpublic customer information obtained from a dealer for a nonpermitted use; and 8) failing to properly indemnify a dealer.

Under current law, a manufacturer, importer, or distributor must reasonably compensate a dealer that performs certain motor vehicle service work for the manufacturer, importer, or distributor. Covered service work is work to rectify product defects or other defects covered by the warranty provided by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor, certain motor vehicle delivery or preparation obligations, and any other work approved by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor. The manufacturer, importer, or distributor must compensate the dealer, for service, at the effective labor rate charged to all customers and, for parts, generally at not less than the amount the dealer charges other retail service customers for the parts. To be eligible for compensation, a dealer must notify the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of the amount that the dealer charges other retail service customers for parts. The manufacturer, importer, or distributor may require the dealer to provide documentary substantiation of the claimed amount the dealer charges for parts.

This bill requires a manufacturer, importer, or distributor to compensate a dealer based on the dealer's "effective nonwarranty labor rate" and "average percentage markup over dealer cost for parts." To be eligible for compensation, a dealer must provide the manufacturer, importer, or dealer with 100 sequential repair orders for qualifying nonwarranty repairs or all repair orders for qualifying nonwarranty repairs performed in a 90-day period. Qualifying nonwarranty repairs are repairs that are not covered by a warranty, but would be covered by the warranty of a manufacturer, importer, or distributor if the repaired vehicle was covered by the warranty. The effective nonwarranty labor rate is determined by dividing the total customer labor charges for qualifying nonwarranty repairs by the total number of hours that would be allowed for the repairs if the repairs were made under the manufacturer's, importer's, or distributors time allowances. The dealer's average percentage markup over dealer cost for parts is determined by dividing total charges for parts for qualifying nonwarranty repairs by the total dealer cost for the parts.

Within 30 days of receiving the substantiating repair orders, the manufacturer, importer, or distributor must begin compensating the dealer based on the rates calculated from the orders. If there is a conflict between the rates calculated by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor and the dealer, the manufacturer, importer, or distributor must provide a written notice and explanation of the dispute to the dealer.

Under current law, with certain exceptions, when a manufacturer on direct dealership, a distributor on indirect dealership, or an importer on direct dealership (grantor) has entered into an agreement with a motor vehicle dealer and the grantor or dealer terminates, cancels, or does not renew the agreement, the grantor must pay to the dealer specified termination benefits. Among these benefits, the grantor must repurchase from the dealer unsold motor vehicles, parts, and accessories that meet certain criteria and pay the dealer a certain amount for the dealership facilities, but then the grantor is entitled to the possession and use of the dealership facilities.

Among the exceptions that allow a termination without payment of benefits are the termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal of an agreement following a determination that the dealer engaged in fraud or theft against the grantor and the termination or cancellation of an agreement by a dealer without adequate notice.

This bill requires payment of termination benefits upon the termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal of a franchise that may constitute less than the entire agreement between the grantor and dealer. This bill also requires a grantor to provide several additional items of termination benefits, including removing signs from the dealership facility and reimbursing the dealer for certain computer material and service contractual expenses and certain facility renovation expenses.

In addition, if the cancellation or nonrenewal of a franchise is due to a manufacturer's, importer's, or distributor's termination, cancellation, or discontinuation of a motor vehicle line make, the grantor must compensate the dealer in an amount not less than the fair market value of the terminated or nonrenewed franchise on the date immediately preceding the date the grantor announced the termination, cancellation, or discontinuation of the line make. This bill also provides several additional exceptions that allow termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal of a franchise without the payment of termination benefits. These are termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal: 1) after revocation of a necessary dealer license; 2) based on the dealer's failure to remain open during customary business hours for seven consecutive days; 3) based on the dealer's conviction of certain crimes; and 4) based on the dealer being subject to a bankruptcy or receivership filing.

This bill also requires a manufacturer, importer, or distributor to indemnify a dealer against certain claims alleging defective or negligent manufacture or design of the vehicle or its parts or accessories. Failure to adequately indemnify a dealer may result in the revocation of the manufacturer's, importer's, or distributor's license or liability for the dealer's pecuniary losses and attorney fees.

Who's behind it

22 lawmakers are its ⁠. 15 are Republicans and 7 are Democrats.

15 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 37 names

Authors (22)

Signed on in support (15)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Transportation vote on an amendment

Passed, 15 to 0 · Jun 2, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 15, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Jun 2, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Jun 2, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 14 to 1.

  4. May 27, 2011

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  5. May 26, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. May 24, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  7. May 17, 2011

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  8. May 17, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.

  9. May 17, 2011

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. May 17, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Ballweg, Barca, Bernier, Brooks, Clark, Endsley, Kestell, Klenke, T. Larson, Mason, Mursau, A. Ott, Petersen, Petryk, Ripp, Seidel, Spanbauer, Steinbrink, Vruwink, Weininger, Williams and Zepnick;Cosponsored by Senators Leibham, Carpenter, Cowles, T. Cullen, Erpenbach, Hansen, Holperin, Kapanke, Lasee, Olsen, Schultz, Wanggaard and Wirch

  2. May 17, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation

  3. May 17, 2011 · Assembly

    Representative Murtha added as a coauthor

  4. May 24, 2011 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. May 26, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. May 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Representative Tiffany added as a coauthor

  7. Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by committee on Transportation

  9. Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 15, Noes 0

  10. Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 14, Noes 1

  11. Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  12. Oct 20, 2011 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 10-25-2011 by committee on Rules

  13. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  14. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote