ILCS » Chapter 215 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

215 ILCS 5/143.17a (2026)

Notice of intention not to renew

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 5/143.17a) (from Ch. 73, par. 755.17a)
    Sec. 143.17a. Notice of intention not to renew.
    (a) A company intending to nonrenew any policy of insurance to which Section 143.11 applies, except for those defined in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (h) of Section 143.13, must mail written notice to the named insured at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the current policy. The notice to the named insured shall provide a specific explanation of the reasons for nonrenewal. A company may not extend the current policy period for purposes of providing notice of its intention not to renew required under this subsection (a).
    (b) A company intending to renew any policy of insurance to which Section 143.11 applies, except for those defined in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (h) of Section 143.13, with an increase in premium of 30% or more or with changes in deductibles or coverage that materially alter the policy must mail or deliver to the named insured written notice of such increase or change in deductible or coverage at least 60 days prior to the renewal or anniversary date. If a company has failed to provide notice of intention to renew required under this subsection (b) at least 60 days prior to the renewal or anniversary date, but does so no less than 31 days prior to the renewal or anniversary date, the company may extend the current policy at the current terms and conditions for the period of time needed to equal the 60 day time period required to provide notice of intention to renew by this subsection (b). The increase in premium shall be the renewal premium based on the known exposure as of the date of the quotation compared to the premium as of the last day of coverage for the current year's policy, annualized. The premium on the renewal policy may be subsequently amended to reflect any change in exposure or reinsurance costs not considered in the quotation.
    (c) A company that has failed to provide notice of intention to nonrenew under subsection (a) of this Section and has failed to provide notice of intention to renew as prescribed under subsection (b) of this Section must renew the expiring policy under the same terms and conditions for an additional year or until the effective date of any similar insurance is procured by the insured, whichever is earlier. The company may increase the renewal premium. However, such increase must be less than 30% of the expiring term's premium and notice of such increase must be delivered to the named insured on or before the date of expiration of the current policy period.
    (d) Under subsection (a), the company shall maintain proof of mailing of the notice of intention not to renew to the named insured on one of the following forms: a recognized U.S. Post Office form or a form acceptable to the U.S. Post Office or other commercial mail delivery service. Under subsections (b) and (c), proof of mailing or proof of receipt of the notice of intention to renew to the named insured may be proven by a sworn affidavit by the company as to the usual and customary business practices of mailing notice pursuant to this Section or may be proven consistent with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 236. For all notice requirements under this Section, notice shall also be sent to the named insured's producer, if known, or the producer of record. Notification shall also be sent to the mortgagee or lien holder listed on the policy.
    (e) Renewal of a policy does not constitute a waiver or estoppel with respect to grounds for cancellation that existed before the effective date of such renewal.
    (f) For purposes of this Section, the named insured's producer, if known, or the producer 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 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 785 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 785 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 6× “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 751 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “•4 Plaintiff responds that proper notice of the lead exclusion was never tendered to her in violation of the notice statute contained in the Illinois Insurance Code (Code) (215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a), (b), (c) (West 1992)).”
People v. Grever, 856 N.E.2d 378 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), however, requires only that the company shall maintain proof of mailing or proof of receipt, and does not specify the nature of the required proof (215 ILCS 5/143.”
People v. Lugo, 910 N.E.2d 767 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 1 (2003), our supreme court found that an affidavit of mailing of a notice did not suffice and that proof of mailing as required by statute (215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) (West 1992)), was to be based upon documentation from the USPS.”
All Am. Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 934 N.E.2d 679 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff’s second amended complaint included claims of common law and statutory fraud (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2000)); breach of contract; lack of consideration; violation of Illinois public policy; and failure to give adequate notice of new coverage terms in a renewal policy…”
Perry v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 724 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “17a of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.17a (West 1992)) (the Act), the relevant portions of which state as follows: “§ 143.”
Windmill Nursing Pavilion, Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 122431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “-7- 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) (West 2008). 6 If the insurer fails to comply with this requirement, it “must renew the expiring policy under the same terms and conditions for an additional year or until the effective date of any similar insurance is procured by the insured, whichever…”
JSM Mgmt. Inc v. Brickstreet Mut. Ins. Co. (C.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 4× “JSM argues that a provision of the Illinois Insurance Code codified at 215 ILCS 5/143.17a prohibits insurance carriers from increasing premiums by changing the applicable classification codes after the end of a coverage period.”
Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (Ill. 2003). · cites it 6× “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff responds that proper notice of the lead exclusion was never tendered to them in violation of the notice statute contained in the Illinois Insurance Code (Code) (215 ILCS 5/143.17a, (a), (b), (c) (West 1992)).”
Am. Kitchen Delights, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 191593WC (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “17a of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.17a (West 2016)). See West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.”
People v. Grever (Ill. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), however, requires only that the company shall maintain proof of mailing or proof of receipt, and does not specify the nature of the required proof (215 ILCS 5/143.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) — 7 cases
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 785 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 751 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “•4 Plaintiff responds that proper notice of the lead exclusion was never tendered to her in violation of the notice statute contained in the Illinois Insurance Code (Code) (215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a), (b), (c) (West 1992)).”
People v. Grever, 856 N.E.2d 378 (Ill. 2006). “See 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), however, requires only that the company shall maintain proof of mailing or proof of receipt, and does not specify the nature of the required proof (215 ILCS 5/143.”
Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
JSM Mgmt. Inc v. Brickstreet Mut. Ins. Co. (C.D. Ill. 2021). “JSM argues that a provision of the Illinois Insurance Code codified at 215 ILCS 5/143.17a prohibits insurance carriers from increasing premiums by changing the applicable classification codes after the end of a coverage period.”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) — 7 cases
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 785 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
People v. Grever, 856 N.E.2d 378 (Ill. 2006). “See 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), however, requires only that the company shall maintain proof of mailing or proof of receipt, and does not specify the nature of the required proof (215 ILCS 5/143.”
People v. Lugo, 910 N.E.2d 767 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “2d 1 (2003), our supreme court found that an affidavit of mailing of a notice did not suffice and that proof of mailing as required by statute (215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) (West 1992)), was to be based upon documentation from the USPS.”
Windmill Nursing Pavilion, Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 122431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “-7- 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) (West 2008). 6 If the insurer fails to comply with this requirement, it “must renew the expiring policy under the same terms and conditions for an additional year or until the effective date of any similar insurance is procured by the insured, whichever…”
Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(c) — 6 cases
Guillen Ex Rel. Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co., 785 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
Perry v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 724 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “17a of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.17a (West 1992)) (the Act), the relevant portions of which state as follows: “§ 143.”
Windmill Nursing Pavilion, Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 122431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “-7- 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(b) (West 2008). 6 If the insurer fails to comply with this requirement, it “must renew the expiring policy under the same terms and conditions for an additional year or until the effective date of any similar insurance is procured by the insured, whichever…”
JSM Mgmt. Inc v. Brickstreet Mut. Ins. Co. (C.D. Ill. 2021). “JSM argues that a provision of the Illinois Insurance Code codified at 215 ILCS 5/143.17a prohibits insurance carriers from increasing premiums by changing the applicable classification codes after the end of a coverage period.”
Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. (Ill. 2003). “” 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(a) (West 1992). Subsection (b), which deals with notice of a material policy change, also states that the insurer must maintain “proof of mailing” but does not repeat the definition of that term which is set forth in subsection (a).”
— 215 ILCS 5/143.17a(d) — 1 case
Am. Kitchen Delights, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 191593WC (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “17a of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.17a (West 2016)). See West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.”
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.