ILCS » Chapter 215 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

215 ILCS 5/500-80 (2026)

Commissions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(215 ILCS 5/500-80)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2027)
    Sec. 500-80. Commissions.
    (a) An insurer or insurance producer may not pay a commission, service fee, brokerage, or other valuable consideration to a person for selling, soliciting, or negotiating insurance in this State if that person is required to be licensed under this Article and is not so licensed at the time of selling, soliciting, or negotiating the insurance.
    (b) A person may not accept a commission, service fee, brokerage, or other valuable consideration for selling, soliciting, or negotiating insurance in this State if that person is required to be licensed under this Article and is not so licensed.
    (c) Renewal or other deferred commissions may be paid to a person for selling, soliciting, or negotiating insurance in this State if the person was required to be licensed under this Article at the time of the sale, solicitation, or negotiation and was so licensed at that time.
    (d) An insurer or insurance producer may pay or assign commissions, service fees, brokerages, or other valuable consideration to an insurance agency or to persons who do not sell, solicit, or negotiate insurance in this State, unless the payment would violate Section 151 of this Code.
    (e) When an insurance producer or business entity charges any fee or compensation separate from commissions deductible from, or directly attributable to, premiums on insurance policies or contracts, it must comply with all of the following:
        (1) It must provide written disclosure to the
    
consumer or contracting party that clearly specifies the amount or extent of the compensation or fee prior to the delivery of the corresponding policy. A copy of the written disclosure must be maintained by the producer or business entity that collects the compensation or fee for a period of 7 years.
        (2) If the combined compensation or fee exceeds 10%
    
of a directly attributable premium amount of a corresponding contract or policy, the disclosure must also include the signature of the consumer or contracting party acknowledging the compensation or fee.
        (3) If an insurance policy or contract is cancelled
    
for any reason within 90 days following the inception date, the producer or business entity shall refund to the consumer a prorated portion of the fee or compensation within 30 days after the producer or business entity receives proper documentation that the corresponding insurance policy or contract has been cancelled. At no time shall a producer or business entity charge the consumer a fee or compensation for cancellation of any insurance policy or contract.
        (4) If the policy file contains documentation that
    
the producer performed a service corresponding to the applicable coverage or policy and the written disclosure stated that the fees were fully earned, then those fees shall be fully earned at inception of the disclosure's execution.
(Source: P.A. 92-386, eff. 1-1-02; 92-587, eff. 6-26-02.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Dod Tech. v. Mesirow Ins. Servs., 887 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dod Tech. v. Mesirow Ins. Servs., 887 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “Therefore, while it may have acted differently, that difference is of little consequence. Defendant also claims that section 10b(1), which provides that the Act does not apply to "[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or…”
Schilke v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 820 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “The Court also found that “Wachovia is not an unlicensed insurance agent or broker, but rather a savings institution that engaged in an LPI transaction,” and that ASI had disclosed its commissions as part of its rate filings with the DOI.”
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2019). “215 ILCS 5/500-80(a). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged that United is required to be licensed, let alone alleged it plausibly.”
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). “215 ILCS 5/500-80(a) (emphasis added). Under the same statute, a “travel retailer” that limits its insurance activities to “offering and disseminating” travel insurance “under the direction of a travel insurance business entity” is allowed to accept compensation.”
Lawndale Restoration Ltd. P'ship v. Acordia of Illinois, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “1, 2002, replaced by 215 ILCS 5/500-80 (West Supp. 2002)). The trial court denied the motion and certified two questions for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (155 Ill.”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-80(a) — 2 cases
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2019). “215 ILCS 5/500-80(a). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged that United is required to be licensed, let alone alleged it plausibly.”
Flores v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. 2021). “215 ILCS 5/500-80(a) (emphasis added). Under the same statute, a “travel retailer” that limits its insurance activities to “offering and disseminating” travel insurance “under the direction of a travel insurance business entity” is allowed to accept compensation.”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-80(c) — 1 case
Dod Tech. v. Mesirow Ins. Servs., 887 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “Therefore, while it may have acted differently, that difference is of little consequence. Defendant also claims that section 10b(1), which provides that the Act does not apply to "[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or…”
— 215 ILCS 5/500-80(e) — 1 case
Dod Tech. v. Mesirow Ins. Servs., 887 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “Therefore, while it may have acted differently, that difference is of little consequence. Defendant also claims that section 10b(1), which provides that the Act does not apply to "[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or…”
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.