People, ex rel. Madigan v. United Construction of America
981 N.E.2d 404
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Appellants are the People ex rel. Lisa Madigan; appellees operate in mortgage and home repair industries in Illinois.
- The Attorney General (AG) filed a two-count complaint seeking injunctive relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Act).
- Count I alleged violations of sections 2, 2B, and 2Q; the circuit court dismissed for failure to plead intent/reliance and proximate harm.
- The circuit court’s dismissal prompted the AG to certify two questions to the appellate court.
- The first issue concerns pleading elements under section 2 when based on misrepresentation; the second concerns standing/relief under section 7 and proximate-cause requirements.
- The court answers the questions by clarifying the element structure across sections 2 through 2III and the standing framework for AG versus private plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 2 requires proof of intended reliance for misrepresentation | Madigan argues misrepresentation requires intended reliance for section 2 | Diamond contends reliance only for omissions, not misrepresentations | Section 2 requires (1) deceptive act, (2) intended reliance, (3) trade/commerce; misrepresentation requires intended reliance. |
| Whether AG must prove proximate cause for injunctive relief under section 7 | Madigan argues proximate cause not required for AG standing | Diamond argues need for actual damages/proximate harm | AG need not prove proximate cause or harm to seek injunctive relief under section 7; standing is broader than private actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartigan v. E&E Hauling, Inc., 153 Ill. 2d 473 (1992) (dicta on misrepresentation elements cited by court; not essential to disposition)
- Siegel v. Levy Organization Development Co., 153 Ill. 2d 534 (1992) (elements of section 2: deceptive act, intent to rely, conduct in trade or commerce)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill. 2d 482 (1996) (reliance not required for statutory consumer fraud but proximate injury required for private actions)
- Zekman v. Direct American Marketers, Inc., 182 Ill. 2d 359 (1998) (private damages require proximate cause; AG standing differs under section 7)
- Cripe v. Leiter, 184 Ill. 2d 185 (1998) (innocent misrepresentation actionable under the Act; no express intent to deceive required)