ILCS » Chapter 215 · Act 113
Illinois Compiled Statutes

215 ILCS 113/45 (2026)

Exclusivity and vicarious liability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 113/45)
    Sec. 45. Exclusivity and vicarious liability. Subject to any contrary provisions of the contract between the client and the employee leasing company, the employee leasing arrangement that exists between an employee leasing company and its clients shall be interpreted for purposes of insurance, bonding, and employers' liability as follows:
        (1) The employee leasing company shall be entitled
    
along with the client to the exclusivity of the remedy under both the workers' compensation and employers' liability provisions of a workers' compensation policy or plan that either party has secured.
        (2) An employee leasing company is not liable for the
    
acts, errors, or omissions of a client or of any leased employee acting under the sole and exclusive direction and control of a client. A client shall not be liable for the acts, errors, or omissions of an employee leasing company or of any employee of an employee leasing company acting under the sole and exclusive direction or control of an employee leasing company. Nothing herein shall limit any contractual liability between an employee leasing company and the client company, nor shall the same limit any liability or responsibility imposed by this Act.
        (3) Employees leased to a client by an employee
    
leasing company shall be considered as the employees of the client for the purposes of general liability insurance, automobile insurance, fidelity bonds, surety bonds, and liquor liability insurance carried by the client. Employees leased to a client by an employee leasing company are not deemed employees of the employee leasing company for purposes of general liability insurance, automobile insurance, fidelity bonds, surety bonds, and liquor liability insurance carried by the employee leasing company unless the employees are included by specific reference in the applicable employment arrangement contract, insurance contract, or bond.
(Source: P.A. 90-499, eff. 1-1-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2011–2012 · leading case: Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Virginia Sur. Co., Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 113758 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Virginia Sur. Co., Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 113758 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “” 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2000). Thus, duplicative coverage and premiums would not provide a double benefit, but they would unnecessarily increase the cost of using a temporary staff, discourage reliance on temporary employment agencies, and give insurers a windfall whenever…”
Mason v. John Boos & Co., 2011 IL App (5th) 100399 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2008). ¶9 When the Employee Leasing Company Act was originally enacted in January 1998, section 20(a) provided that “[a]n employee leasing company may not engage in business in this State without first registering with the Department.”
Mason v. John Boos & Co., 959 N.E.2d 209 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “" 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2008). ¶ 9 When the Employee Leasing Company Act was originally enacted in January 1998, section 20(a) provided that "[a]n employee leasing company may not engage in business in this State without first registering with the Department.”
— 215 ILCS 113/45(1) — 3 cases
Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund v. Virginia Sur. Co., Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 113758 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “” 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2000). Thus, duplicative coverage and premiums would not provide a double benefit, but they would unnecessarily increase the cost of using a temporary staff, discourage reliance on temporary employment agencies, and give insurers a windfall whenever…”
Mason v. John Boos & Co., 2011 IL App (5th) 100399 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2008). ¶9 When the Employee Leasing Company Act was originally enacted in January 1998, section 20(a) provided that “[a]n employee leasing company may not engage in business in this State without first registering with the Department.”
Mason v. John Boos & Co., 959 N.E.2d 209 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “" 215 ILCS 113/45(1) (West 2008). ¶ 9 When the Employee Leasing Company Act was originally enacted in January 1998, section 20(a) provided that "[a]n employee leasing company may not engage in business in this State without first registering with the Department.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.