Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Insurance Company, 2015 IL 117021

In 2006 Country Casualty, through its captive agent Tom Lessaris, issued an auto policy to Steven Skaperdas; Skaperdas asked Lessaris to add his fiancée, Valerie Day, as a driver.
Lessaris prepared a policy naming only Skaperdas, though the declarations listed an additional driver described as “female, 30–64.” Day was not listed as a named insured.
Day’s minor son was seriously injured by an underinsured motorist; Country Casualty denied underinsured motorist coverage for Day and her son because they were not named insureds.
Skaperdas and Day sued: Count I alleged Lessaris negligently failed to procure the requested coverage under 735 ILCS 5/2-2201; Count II alleged Country Casualty was liable under respondeat superior; other counts sought reformation and declaratory relief.
The trial court dismissed counts I and II on a section 2-619 motion; the appellate court reversed, holding section 2-2201 imposes a duty on an “insurance producer” to exercise ordinary care in procuring requested coverage.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: it held the statutory term “insurance producer” includes both captive agents and brokers (per the Insurance Code definition) and that section 2-2201 imposes a duty of ordinary care once specific coverage is requested; insurer can be liable under respondeat superior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 735 ILCS 5/2-2201 imposes a duty of ordinary care on the insurance agent who was asked to procure specific coverage	Skaperdas: the statute creates a duty on any “insurance producer” to exercise ordinary care in procuring coverage requested by the insured	Lessaris/Country Casualty: “insurance producer” was meant to refer to brokers (fiduciaries), not captive agents; captive agents owe duties only to their insurer, not insureds	The Court: “insurance producer” should be read via the Insurance Code definition (any person required to be licensed to sell/solicit/negotiate insurance), so captive agents and brokers are included; section 2-2201(a) imposes a duty of ordinary care after a specific coverage request is made
Whether Country Casualty may be held vicariously liable for the agent’s alleged negligence	Plaintiffs: respondeat superior makes Country Casualty liable for its agent’s negligence once a duty exists	Country Casualty: cannot be liable because its agent owed no duty to plaintiffs	The Court: because Lessaris owed a duty under section 2-2201(a), respondeat superior may render Country Casualty vicariously liable; the trial-court dismissal of counts I and II was reversed and remanded

Zannini v. Reliance Insurance Co. of Illinois, 147 Ill.2d 437 (1992) (distinguishes brokers and agents and discusses fiduciary duties)
Talbot v. Country Life Insurance Co., 8 Ill. App.3d 1062 (1973) (captive agent may owe duty based on negligent affirmative undertaking)
Bovan v. American Family Life Insurance Co., 386 Ill. App.3d 933 (2008) (reaffirming circumstances where captive agent may owe duty when inducing detrimental reliance)
Melrose Park Sundries, Inc. v. Carlini, 399 Ill. App.3d 915 (2010) (section 2-2201 duty applies only when specific coverage was requested)
Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois, 2012 IL 112530 (2012) (doctrine of respondeat superior permits principal liability for agent’s torts)
Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (2012) (general principle on duty of ordinary care and foreseeability)