215 ILCS 5/143.17

Notice of intention not to renew

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 5/143.17) (from Ch. 73, par. 755.17)
    Sec. 143.17. Notice of intention not to renew.
    a. No company shall fail to renew any policy of insurance, as defined in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (h) of Section 143.13, to which Section 143.11 applies, unless it shall send by mail to the named insured at least 30 days advance notice of its intention not to renew. 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. The nonrenewal shall not become effective until at least 30 days from the proof of mailing date of the notice to the name insured. Notification shall also be sent to the insured's broker, if known, or the agent of record, if known, and to the last known mortgagee or lien holder. For purposes of this Section, the mortgagee or lien holder, insured's broker, or the agent of record may opt to accept notification electronically. However, where cancellation is for nonpayment of premium, the notice of cancellation must be mailed at least 10 days before the effective date of the cancellation.
    b. This Section does not apply if the company has manifested its willingness to renew directly to the named insured. Such written notice shall specify the premium amount payable, including any premium payment plan available, and the name of any person or persons, if any, authorized to receive payment on behalf of the company. If no person is so authorized, the premium notice shall so state.
    b-5. This Section does not apply if the company manifested its willingness to renew directly to the named insured. However, no company may impose changes in deductibles or coverage for any policy forms applicable to an entire line of business enumerated in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (h) of Section 143.13 to which Section 143.11 applies unless the company mails to the named insured written notice of the change in deductible or coverage at least 60 days prior to the renewal or anniversary date. Notice shall also be sent to the insured's broker, if known, or the agent of record.
    c. Should a company fail to comply with (a) or (b) of this Section, the policy shall terminate only on the effective date of any similar insurance procured by the insured with respect to the same subject or location designated in both policies.
    d. Renewal of a policy does not constitute a waiver or estoppel with respect to grounds for cancellation which existed before the effective date of such renewal.
    e. In all notices of intention not to renew any policy of insurance, as defined in Section 143.11 the company shall provide the named insured a specific explanation of the reasons for nonrenewal.
    f. For purposes of this Section, the insured's broker, if known, or the agent of record and the mortgagee or lien holder may opt to accept notification electronically.
(Source: P.A. 100-475, eff. 1-1-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Chapman
Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Chapman (2016) illappct · cites it 2× “1-15-0919 TCPA exclusion in the 2006 Policy, which was added upon renewal of the 2003-06 Policy, was not enforceable because Cincinnati had failed to give 30 days' advance notice as required by Illinois statute (215 ILCS 5/143.17 (West 2008)). Cincinnati argued that the…”
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Trujillo (2014) illappct “17(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code (Insurance Code) (215 ILCS 5/143.17(a) (West 2008)). As the record establishes the amendatory endorsement was previously part of Delgado’s policy, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding notification of a material reduction in…”
Elson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) illappct “215 ILCS 5/143.17 (West 1994). Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated this section of the Code on the same basis the breach of contract was alleged.”
Hastings Mutual Insurance Company v. Ultimate Backyard (2012) illappct “Vasquez states that Hastings Mutual is not proposing a question of law but is in fact asking the court to make factual determinations regarding what date Hastings Mutual provided notice to NCCI of the cancellation of the insurance policy.”
Sieron & Associates, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (2006) illappct · cites it 2× “Although mandated by the State of Illinois, the FAIR Plan Association is an insurer, and the Illinois Insurance Code merely requires it to notify an insured of its intention not to renew a policy at least 30 days before the policy expires (215 ILCS 5/143.17(a) (West 2004)). If…”
Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Backyard (2012) illappct “Vasquez states that Hastings Mutual is not proposing a question of law but is in fact asking the court to make factual determinations regarding what date Hastings Mutual provided notice to NCCI of the cancellation of the insurance policy.”
S.M. Acquisition Co. v. Euler American Credit Indemnity Co. (In Re S.M. Acquisition Co.) (2004) ilnb “17 [215 ILCS 5/143.17] and (2) the issuance and delivery by an insurer of a policy superseding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer or the issuance and delivery of a certificate or notice extending the term of a policy…”
Elson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) illappct “215 ILCS 5/143.17 (West 1994). Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated this section of the Code on the same basis the breach of contract was alleged.”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.17(a) — 3 cases
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Trujillo (2014) illappct “17(a) of the Illinois Insurance Code (Insurance Code) (215 ILCS 5/143.17(a) (West 2008)). As the record establishes the amendatory endorsement was previously part of Delgado’s policy, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding notification of a material reduction in…”
Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Chapman (2016) illappct “1-15-0919 TCPA exclusion in the 2006 Policy, which was added upon renewal of the 2003-06 Policy, was not enforceable because Cincinnati had failed to give 30 days' advance notice as required by Illinois statute (215 ILCS 5/143.17 (West 2008)). Cincinnati argued that the…”
Sieron & Associates, Inc. v. Department of Insurance (2006) illappct “Although mandated by the State of Illinois, the FAIR Plan Association is an insurer, and the Illinois Insurance Code merely requires it to notify an insured of its intention not to renew a policy at least 30 days before the policy expires (215 ILCS 5/143.17(a) (West 2004)). If…”
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.