ILCS » Chapter 215 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

215 ILCS 5/143.14 (2026)

Notice of cancellation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 5/143.14) (from Ch. 73, par. 755.14)
    Sec. 143.14. Notice of cancellation.
    (a) No notice of cancellation of any policy of insurance, to which Section 143.11 applies, shall be effective unless mailed by the company to the named insured at the last mailing address known by the company. The company shall maintain proof of mailing of such notice on a recognized U.S. Post Office form or a form acceptable to the U.S. Post Office or other commercial mail delivery service. Notification shall also be sent to the insured's broker if known, or the agent of record, if known, and to the mortgagee or lien holder listed on the policy. For purposes of this Section, the mortgage or lien holder, insured's broker, if known, or the agent of record may opt to accept notification electronically.
    (b) Whenever a financed insurance contract is cancelled, the insurer shall return whatever gross unearned premiums are due under the insurance contract or contracts not to exceed the unpaid balance due the premium finance company directly to the premium finance company effecting the cancellation for the account of the named insured. The return premium must be mailed to the premium finance company within 60 days. The request for the unearned premium by the premium finance company shall be in the manner of a monthly account, current accounting by producer, policy number, unpaid balance and name of insured for each cancelled amount. In the event the insurance contract or contracts are subject to audit, the insurer shall retain the right to withhold the return of the portion of premium that can be identified to the contract or contracts until the audit is completed. Within 30 days of the completion of the audit, if a premium retained by the insurer after crediting the earned premium would result in a surplus, the insurer shall return the surplus directly to the premium finance company. If the audit should result in an additional premium due the insurer, the obligation for the collection of this premium shall fall upon the insurer and not affect any other contract or contracts currently being financed by the premium finance company for the named insured.
    (c) Whenever a premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney enabling the premium finance company to cancel any insurance contract or contracts in the agreement, the insurer shall honor the date of cancellation as set forth in the request from the premium finance company without requiring the return of the insurance contract or contracts. The insurer may mail to the named insured an acknowledgment of the notice of cancellation from the premium finance company but the named insured shall not incur any additional premium charge for any extension of coverage. The insurer need not maintain proof of mailing of this notice.
    (d) All statutory regulatory and contractual restrictions providing that the insurance contract may not be cancelled unless the required notice is mailed to a governmental agency, mortgagee, lienholder, or other third party shall apply where cancellation is effected under a power of attorney under a premium finance agreement. The insurer shall have the right for a premium charge for this extension of coverage.
(Source: P.A. 100-475, eff. 1-1-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins., 701 N.E.2d 493 (Ill. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins., 701 N.E.2d 493 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 4× “JUSTICE NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court: The issue presented here is whether an insurance company’s failure to produce the proof of mailing on a form as required by the cancellation provisions of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994))…”
Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 120561 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “14(a) of the Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 2008)). Specifically, Hunt contended that State Farm was required to comply with the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual, which states, “[w]hen requesting a certificate of mailing for three or more pieces presented at…”
Am. Stand. Ins. v. Gnojewski, 747 N.E.2d 367 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “14(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994)). Gallant noted that the requirement of mailing notices of cancellation to mortgagees or lienholders applied not to all lienholders, as alleged by the third-party plaintiffs, but only to those mortgagees or…”
Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins., 684 N.E.2d 1108 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 5× “14(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14 (West 1994)), when it mailed the notification of cancellation on December 11, *1110 1992, and informed Ragan the policy would be cancelled on December 26, 1992.”
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 751 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “In Ragan, the issue was whether the insurance company’s failure to produce proof of mailing on a form as required by the cancellation provisions of the Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994)) invalidates the cancellation.”
Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hughes, 649 N.E.2d 561 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “) 215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1992). In May 1993 a fire substantially destroyed the structure of Hughes’ residence.”
Textile Maint. v. Indus. Comm'n, 636 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 3× “14 (now 215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1992)), the Act, and the employer's workers' compensation policy; and (3) whether the trial court properly interpreted Farmers' workers' compensation policy when it applied the 10-day, rather than the 60-day, cancellation date.”
Elson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 691 N.E.2d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “215 ILCS 5/143.14(d) (West 1994). Both Dungey and Pearce involved renewals and held that the subject endorsements were renewed along with the policy and remained in effect after the renewal.”
Ellegood v. Am. States Ins., 638 N.E.2d 1193 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 215 ILCS 5/143.14 (West 1992). On April 19, 1990, fire damaged the building covered by the policy.”
Siwek v. White, 905 N.E.2d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “215 ILCS 5/143.14(c) (West 2002). Second, American asserted that its policy specifically contained language obligating it to provide coverage only “in consideration of the payment of the premium.”
Marketview Motors, Inc. v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California, 660 N.E.2d 1337 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 3× “14 of the Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14 (West 1992)). The notice purported to cancel the policy as of 12:01 a.”
Marketview Motors, Inc. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 677 N.E.2d 870 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994). In addition, section 143.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) — 15 cases
Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins., 701 N.E.2d 493 (Ill. 1998). “JUSTICE NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court: The issue presented here is whether an insurance company’s failure to produce the proof of mailing on a form as required by the cancellation provisions of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994))…”
Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 120561 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “14(a) of the Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 2008)). Specifically, Hunt contended that State Farm was required to comply with the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual, which states, “[w]hen requesting a certificate of mailing for three or more pieces presented at…”
Am. Stand. Ins. v. Gnojewski, 747 N.E.2d 367 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “14(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994)). Gallant noted that the requirement of mailing notices of cancellation to mortgagees or lienholders applied not to all lienholders, as alleged by the third-party plaintiffs, but only to those mortgagees or…”
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 751 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “In Ragan, the issue was whether the insurance company’s failure to produce proof of mailing on a form as required by the cancellation provisions of the Code (215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1994)) invalidates the cancellation.”
Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hughes, 649 N.E.2d 561 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “) 215 ILCS 5/143.14(a) (West 1992). In May 1993 a fire substantially destroyed the structure of Hughes’ residence.”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.14(c) — 1 case
Siwek v. White, 905 N.E.2d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “215 ILCS 5/143.14(c) (West 2002). Second, American asserted that its policy specifically contained language obligating it to provide coverage only “in consideration of the payment of the premium.”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.14(d) — 4 cases
Elson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 691 N.E.2d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “215 ILCS 5/143.14(d) (West 1994). Both Dungey and Pearce involved renewals and held that the subject endorsements were renewed along with the policy and remained in effect after the renewal.”
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Taylor, 931 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Taylor (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Elson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
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.