THIRD DIVISION August 29, 2007 No. 1-06- 2304 SAM UEL G OLF , ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) No. 05L5753 CARL HENDERSON and STATE FARM ) MUTU AL AUTOMO BILE

INSUR AN CE ) COMPAN

Y, a C orporati on, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Da

ni el M. Local l o, Def endan ts-A ppel l ees . ) Judg e Pres i di ng.

JU STI CEGR

EIM A N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plaint iff , S amuel Go lf, fil

ed a n amende d co mplaint ag ainst defend ant s, insu ra nce a gent Ca rl Hen ders on

an d h i s e m pl oy er Sta te F ar m Mu tual A utom ob i l e In su ra n ce Com pa n y (St ate Farm ), all egi ng that defen

dants breach

ed thei r contract to obtain f

or plai ntif f a di sabi li ty i nsuran ce po licy t ha t wo uld pa y him be ne fit s in t he ev en t t ha t he wa s inju r ed in t he co ur se o f his
em pl oy men t an d w as con se qu en tl y un ab l e to work . Pl

ai n ti f f f ur th er al l eg ed th at def en da n ts
v i ol ate d th

e C on su mer Fr aud a n d D ec ep ti

v e B us i n es s P ra cti

ce s A ct (th e C on su

mer Fr aud A ct) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (Wes t 200 4) ) by misrep re sent ing, w ith int ent t hat plaint iff re ly on t he misr ep re se nt at io n, t hat t he p o licy pr es ent ed t o pla int iff, a nd u lt imat ely pu rc has ed by pla int iff, pr ovid ed t he r equ est ed c ove ra ge. The t rial co ur t gr ant ed d efenda nt s’ mot ion t o d ismi ss t he amende d co mplaint, finding tha t plaint iff was char ged wit h kno wing t he co nt ent s o f his policy and therefore could state nei

ther a cla im for breach

of contract nor a clai

m f or co nsum

er fraud. Pl ai ntif f appe aled.1-06-2304

2

On ap pea l, plaint iff

first co nt ends t hat t he co nsumer frau d co unt of his amend ed c omp laint
wa s erron eou sl y di sm i ss ed when he su f f i ci en tl y sta ted a c au se of ac ti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2of t he Co nsumer Fra ud Ac t . P laintiff next c ont ends t hat we s hou ld re ver se t he t rial co ur t ’s judg ment
an d r em an d th i s c as e f or f ur th er pr oce ed i n gsb ec au se

Hen ders on

b re ach ed h i s statu tory du ty pursuant t o sect ion 2-2201(a) o f the Code of Civi l Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2 -2201( a) (West 20 04 ) ) t o ex er cis e o r din ar y ca r e in pr o cu r ing pla int iff’s po licy. Fina lly, p laint iff co nt en ds t ha t his dut y to kno w t he co nt ent s o f the po licy was “not abso lut e whe re [he ] w as misled by [def endan ts],” an d tha t, theref ore, di sm i ssa l of h i s am ended c omp l ai

nt wa s erron

eous. Accordin g to the ple adi

ngs f il ed by pla in tif f, on Fe bruary 28, 2004, plai

ntif f v is ited Henderson’ s State Farm off ic e and aske d that Henderson obtain for hi m a dis abi li ty i nsuran ce pol i cy that woul

d pay hi m bene f i ts i n the ev en t that he wasi nj ured a t hi s j ob as

a con crete f i nisher. Henderson presented plai ntif f wi th a po li cy that he said would pro vide benef its under those circu msta nces . H ow ever , t he po licy cont ained t he fo llowing exc lusion: “T his po licy d o es no t co ve r** * a ny o t he rlo ss ca us ed o rco nt r ibu t ed by:
*** (d) In j ur y or S i ck n es s to th e exten

t y ou a reen ti tl ed to benef its under, or obtain any

sett lem ent related t o, any Workers’ Com pen sa ti on or O ccup ati

on al Dise as es La w, or a n y oth er sta te dis abi li ty law or pro gram.” Hend ers on d i d n ot cal l pl ai nti f f ’s atte nti on to th e e xc l us i on a nd pl ai nti f f pur ch as ed the pol i cy on Feb ruary 28, 200 4.1-06-2304

1 In the i r bri ef , de f en da nts do n ot con tes t the propri ety of i m puti ng the ac ti ons of Hen ders on to his em

ploye r, State Fa

rm . 3 Plai ntif f was subse quently

in jured on the j ob on Novem ber 5, 2004, and was thereaf ter
un ab l e to work . Pl

ai n ti f f re ce i v ed wor kers ’ c om pen sa ti on b en ef i ts a s a re su l t of h i s i n j ur y . Sta te Far m den i ed pl ai ntif f ’sclai m f or addi tion al bene f i ts under the di sab i l i

ty i ns uran ce pol i cy . Plain tiff ’s ini tial complai

nt, in whi ch he all eged t hat He nderso n, as St ate Farm’s
em ploy ee, 1 wa s ne glig ent in se lling p laint iff th e p o licy, w hich d id no t pr o vide t he b ene fits pla int iff had spe ci f

i cal l y reque sted, w as f

i l ed on May 25, 200 5. Defend ant s move d t o d ismi ss t he co mplaint o n No vember 2 3, 200 5, alleging t hat t he
ca us e of ac ti on wasba

rre d by the ec onom i c-l oss doc tri ne , wh i ch prov i de s th at “ rec ove ry f or
eco nomic lo ss- t he los s o f the benefit of o ne’s ba rg ain-o rd inarily is ava ilable only in cont ra ct and not in tort” ( Bernot v. Prim us Corp. , 278 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 75 1, 754 ( 1996) ). T he t r ial c o ur t pe rmit t ed pla int iff t o file a n a men de d c o mpla int o n Fe br ua ry 3, 20 06 , in whi ch pl ai ntif f al le ged that defen

dants had b

reached thei

r contract with pl

ai ntif f to obtain a pol

ic y that would entitle hi

m to bene fi

ts if he were i nj ured at wor k and that, pursuant to the Consum er Fra ud Ac t , d efenda nt s had misrepr ese nt ed t o p laintiff that unde r t he po licy they pr ovid ed, he would be en titl ed to be ne f i ts i f he were i nj ured a t work. Defe ndan ts moved to dism

is s the am ended com

pla in t o n March

17, 2006. They al

le ged that the com pl ai nt sh oul d be di sm i sse d purs uan t to secti on 2-6 15 of

the C ode of

Ci vi l Procedu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 615 (Wes t 200 4) ) be cau se p laintiff was cha rg ed a s a mat t er of law wit h kno wing the c onten

ts of h i s pol i cy and theref

ore coul d state n ei ther a clai m of b reach of contrac t nor a1-06-2304

4

cl ai m of consu mer f rau d a nd tha t the com pl ai nt s hou l d b e di sm

i ss ed pur suan t to se cti on 2 -61 9 of t he Co de o f Civil

Pr oc edu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 619 (Wes t 200 4) ) be cau se bo t h claims wer e bar re d by the economi

c-loss doctrin

e, which, agai

n, general ly preclude s negl

ige nce cl ai ms in contract actions. On

Jul y 11, 200 6, th

e tri al cou rt gran ted de f en da nts ’ m oti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2 -61 5 of t he Co de o f Ci vil P r o ce du r e, find ing t ha t pl ain t iff ha d a du t y t o kn o w t he co nt en t s o f his po licy, and dism issed the am

ended complai

nt with prejudice. The co urt further denied def endants’
section 2-619 motion

as m oot. Plai ntif f f i l ed a ti mel y noti ce of appe al
. A t the outs et, w e n

ote that w e re

vi ew an orde r dism i ss i ng a c om pl ai nt p urs ua nt to a motion to dism

iss de novo
. Coun

try M utual Ins uran ce C o. v Ca

rr , 366 Ill . App. 3d 758, 763 (2006 ), appeal allow

ed , sub nom. Co unt ry Mut ual I nsur ance Co . v. Vo gelza ng , 222 Ill . 2d 569 ( 20 06 )
. A mo t io n t o dis miss an ac t io n o n t he ple ad ing s s ho uld no t be gr an t ed un les s it is c lea r ly appa ren t that no s et of f

acts c an be prove n that would en

titl e the plai ntif f to rel i ef
. Per elman v. Fi sher , 2 98 I ll. App. 3d 1 007 , 1 011 (1 998 ). A review ing co ur t must det er mine whet her t he alle ga t io ns s et o ut in t he co mpla int , t ak en in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he pla int iff, su fficie nt ly set f orth a ca use of a cti on upon

whi ch rel i ef may be gran ted. Perelm

an , 298 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1011. We may af f i rm the d i sm i ssa l of a com plai nt on a ny grounds on

the re cord. Paul

H. Sch wen den er, Inc. v . Ju pi ter E l ec tric C o. , 358 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 65 , 71 (20 05). We wi ll address the argum

ents rai sed i

n thi s appeal

in a sl igh tly dif feren t o rder than they
wer e pr ese nt ed in t he pa rt ies’ br iefs. We firs t add re ss t he pa rt ies’ ar gument s re gar ding t he di sm i ssa l of the two coun

ts of p l ai ntif f ’sam ended c omp l ai

nt.1-06-2304

5

The f irst count al le ged that Henderson, as State Farm’ s em ploy ee, breached hi s oral
con tract wi th p l ai nti f f to obta i n a pol i cy tha t woul d pr ovi depl ai nti f f be ne f i ts i f he were i njure d on t he jo b a nd un ab le t o wo rk. Be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t an d a ga in o n a pp ea l, de fen da nt s a r gu e t ha t t his
co un t sho uld be dis miss ed be ca us e p laint iff ha d a n a bso lut e d ut y t o kn o w t he co nt en t s o f his pol i cy an d b ec au se the cl ai m wa s b arred

by the ec onom i c-l oss doc tri ne . A cl ose rea di ng of pla int iff’s br ief, ho we ve r , ind ica t es t ha t pla int iff do es no t sp ec ifica lly ap pe al t he dis miss al o f his b re ach of con tra ct c oun

t. Th e on l y con ten ti on rai se d b y pl ai n ti f f th at woul

d a rgua b l y re l ate to that count is his thi

rd: that “the duty to read t he polic y i s not absolute where the in sured has b een misl ed by t he insur er .” No net heless, unde r t hat head ing, p laintiff doe s no t deve lop an ar gument for reversal

of the breach

of contract co unt’s di sm

is sal . Moreo ver, i

n hi s concl usi on, though plaint iff ask s t hat we “r einst at e[ t his case ] o n all cou nt s,” he o nly specifically re fers t o t he
consum er fraud count, arguin

g that “the Consum

er Fraud Act was des ign

ed to co ver [ de fen da nt s’ ] misr ep r es en t at io ns a nd o miss io ns. ” I n his r ep ly br ief, pla int iff mo r e s pe cific ally alleges t hat he “has s ufficiently [pled ] a claim of bre ach o f co nt ra ct .” Ho weve r, as in his o pening brief, plaint iff

do es no t deve lop an ar gument or cite aut hor ity in supp or t of r ever sal o f the di sm i ss al of the br each of con tract cou nt. A cc ordi

ngl y , i n ou r vi ew , pl ai nti f f has e i the r ch osen n ot to appeal the court ’s di sm

is sal of the breach

of contract co unt of his am ended com

pla in t o r has sim ply not sufficien

tly argued for the reversal of the dism issal of that co unt (see 210 Ill . 2d R. 341(h )(7) (poi nts n ot argued i

n a ppel l ate bri ef or for wh

i ch no su pporti ng a uthori ty i s ci ted are wai ve d)), an d we wi l l not rev i ew that di sm

i ssa l
. Concerning the consum

er fraud count , plai

ntif f f irst contends t hat he stat ed a pro per cause1-06-2304

2 Wh i l e we a ckn owl edge that f edera l deci sions a re not bi ndi ng on thi s court, th ey

are persuasi ve an d we m ay “ ‘el ect to giv e considerabl

e weight to the deci si ons of f ederal court s.’ ” Ram ette v. AT&T Corp. , 351 Ill . App. 3d 73, 83 (2004), quo ting Sp riet sma v. M er cur y Marine , 197 Il l . 2d 112 , 120 (2 001). 6 of a cti on un der the Con sum

er F raud A

ct. Section 2 o f the Consumer Fraud Act provides: “[U]nfai r or deceptive acts o r pract ices, i ncl uding b ut no t lim ited to the use or employm

ent of any deception, f

raud, false pretense, f

al se promi se, mi srepresentation or the conceal me nt, suppression or o mi

ssion of any

ma terial f ac t, wi th i nte nt th at others rel y upon the con ce al men t, su ppr es si on or om i ss i on of such m aterial fact *** are he

reby decl ared unl

awful whether an

y pe rson has i n f act be en m i sled, de cei

ve d or dam

aged there by.” 815 ILCS 505/2(We st 2004 ). To estab l i sh

a v i ol ati on of the Consu mer F rau d Act, a pl ai nti f f m us t prov e “ (1) a d ec ep ti

ve ac t or pr act ice, (2 ) int ent on t he de fendant s’ pa rt t hat plaint iff re ly on t he de cep t ion, and ( 3) t hat t he deception occurred i

n the course of conduct i

nvol vi ng trade or co mm

erce.” Sieg el v. Le vy Org an iza ti on D evel

opm en t Co. , 153 Il

l . 2d 534 , 542 (1 992). Def endan ts do not con

test that pl

ai ntif f ha s prope

rl y pl ed th e latter two requi

rem en ts. How ever, de f

en da nts con ten d that p l ai nti f f has n ot pled tha t the y en gage d i n a de ce pti ve ac t or practi ce. In thi s reg ard , thi s c as e i s s i

m i l ar to Le Don

ne v. A XA Equ i tab l e L i f e In su ran ceCo. , 411 F.Su pp. 2d 9 57 (N.D . Il l . 2006) , 2 in whi ch, as i n the case bef ore t hi s court, the pla

in tif f i nsured1-06-2304

7

brought suit agai

nst the def

endan t ins urance agen

t pursuant to section 2 of

the Consum

er Fraud Act . T he d efe nda nt mo ved t o dis miss t he C o nsu mer Fr au d Ac t cla im, a llegin g t hat t he p laint iff had failed t o a llege t hat t he de fendant had e ngag ed in a misre pr ese nt at ion o f fact or a de cep t ive busi ness practice. The court deni ed the m ot ion wi th respect to that clai

m b ecause the pl

ai ntif f h ad
su ffic ien t ly all eg ed a mis r ep r es en t at io n, sp ec ific ally t ha t , in p r es en t ing t he pl ain t iff w it h a po licy, the def endan t had ass ured th e pl ai ntif f that the pol i cy would en titl e hi m to ben ef i ts i f he were in jured an d unab le to operate his h

ardware store, despi

te the fact that the polic

y di d not pro vi

de f or such bene f i ts. Si m i l arl y , here, pl ai n ti f f h as sp ec i f i ca l l y al l eg ed th at H en ders on , a s a

n em pl oy ee of Sta te Far m, “mis re pr es ent ed t o t he p laint iff th at t he d isab ility p o licy he p ro cu re d w o uld pa y t he p laint iff $2,500.00 per month i f h

e was i nj ured at wor k and could not wor k.” Sim ply stated, plai

ntif f h as al l eg ed a m i srep res en tation on the pa rt of de f en da nts . A cc ordi

ngl y , h e h assta ted a c au se of action f or vi ola tion of s ection 2 of

the C onsu

mer F raud A

ct. Plai ntif f n ext contends that hi s f

ai lure to know the content of hi s poli cy was not an ab sol ute b ar to hi s con sum

er f raud c aus e of

action. An ins ur ed ha s a n a ffir mat ive du t y t o r ev iew t he t er ms o f a n ew po licy is su ed t o him an d is bur den ed wi th kn owi ng th e con tents of that pol i cy . Per ry v. Econ om y Fi re & Ca sual ty Co. , 311 Ill. App. 3d 6 9, 7 0 (1 999 ); Fu rta k v . M of f ett , 2 84 I ll. App. 3d 2 55, 257 (1 996 ). Ho weve r, t he appella te court has n

ot ed that this rul

e i s not an abs olute bar to causes of acti on brought by an in sured agai nst an i nsuran ce agent or broker as oppo sed to causes of action b rought by an

in sured agai nst an i ns urer.1-06-2304

8

In Black v. Illi

nois Fair Plan Ass’n , 87 Ill . App. 3d 1106 (1980), t he pl ai ntif fs in sureds br o ug ht su it ag ain st t he de fen da nt insu r an ce ag en t alle gin g t ha t t he de fen da nt wa s ne glig en t in obtaini ng an in surance pol

ic y f or t he pl ai ntif fs on the wrong propert y. The trial court dis mi ssed the sui t, fin din g that, as a matter of law, the pl ai ntif fs were contributoril

y n eglige nt when they f ail ed to noti ce the m

i stake on the pol i cy they were i ssued. On ap pea l, t he co ur t re co gnized t he ge ner al ru le tha t an insur ed is bo und t o k now t he
co nt en t s o f his p o licy, bu t r ea so ne d t ha t t he rule mus t be t es t ed in ligh t o f t he r ela t io nsh ip b etw een th e i n su re d a n d h i s a gen t. Th e c our t disti n gui sh ed b etw een ca se s a dd re ss i n g th e l i ab i l i ty of a n insure r t o a n insure d whe n t he insur ed failed t o no t e a d iscre panc y betw een t he po licy he recei ved an d the policy

he requested and those b etween an i nsured an d an agen t. In the former cases, the Bl ack

court reasoned, the focus is on the abi li ty of the parti es to enforce the poli cy as written and the insured is attempting to deny the eff ectiveness of

the po li cy’ s lan guage. I n those
ca se s, th e i ns ure d hasa d

uty to rea d the p ol i cy

an d bri ng di screp an

ci esto the i ns ure r’ s a tten ti on upon r ece i pt of the pol

i cy i n orde r to preve nt the i ns urer’ s ri ghts f rom b ei ng prej udiced. Ho we ve r , a s uit be t we en an insu r ed an d a n a ge nt do es no t fo cu s o n t he mo dific at io n o f t he t er ms
o f a c o nt r ac t o rpr eju dic e t o t he pa r t ies
. I nst ea d, it invo lve s p r o o f t ha t t he ag en t ne glig en t ly perf orme d hi s duty to the i ns ured or that he

bre ach ed h i s con tract wi th the i ns ured. Th e court
reverse d t he tr ial

cou rt ’s judgment, findi

ng that , in a in

sured ’s case against his agent, the insured’s f ail ure to read

his pol i cy may be evi den ce of contri butory ne gli gen ce b ut i s n ot contri butory
ne gli gen ce a s a m atter of l aw. In Perelm an , t he insur ed p laintiff bro ught suit aga inst t he de fendant bro ker who , t he1-06-2304

9

plaint iff alleged , ha d br eac hed his a gr eement t o o bt ain a disa bili t y policy unde r w hich the plaint iff ’s bene fits wo uld incr eas e at t he r at e o f inf latio n and ha d neg ligent ly m isrep re sent ed t he contents of the poli

cy that he had presen

ted to the pla

in tif f. The tri al

court dis mi ssed the case

as barred by a tolle d statut e of l

im itations , fi ndi ng that the pla

in tif f’ s cause of

action h ad accrued at t he t ime that he wa s pr ese nt ed w ith t he po licy because he had an affirmat ive dut y to kno w t he conten ts of h i s pol i cy . On appe al , th e p l ai

nti f f con ten de d that the tri

al cou rt er red i n f i nd i ng tha t, as a m atte r of la w, he sh ould ha ve kn own of the di screpanci

es between

the policy

requested and the poli

cy recei ved at the tim

e he recei ved the polic

y. The appella te court noted that when an i nsured b rin gs suit aga inst a n insure r a fte r failing to not ice a d iscre panc y betw een t he po licy that was issued and the po li cy that was request ed, t he i nsured is b ound by the terms of the policy because he has

a du ty to re ad th e p oli cy

up on i ts rec ei pt a n d i n f orm th e i n su re r of an y di screpa n ci es i n ord er to pre ve nt th e i ns ure r f rom be i ng pre j udi ce d i n th e f uture. H owe ve

r, the c ourt d

rew a di sti nc ti on between actions brought by in sureds agai

nst i nsurers wh

o issue pol

ic ie s and actions by

in sureds ag ai n st a gen ts o r broker s w

h o procu reth e p oli ci

es . In th e f orm er ca se s, an i n su re d i s tr y i n g to deny t he effect of p ar t of t he po licy i t self. I n t he lat t er cas es, t he su it d epe nds o n pr oo f tha t t he ag en t or b roker f ai l ed to f ul f i l l i ts o b l i ga ti on s to th e i

n su re d, a n d th eref oreth e p l ai

n ti f f ’s f ai l ur e to know the contents of the poli cy is not a bar to the cause of ac tion. The Perelm

an court det er mined t hat t he plaint iff had a deq uat ely raised a ge nuine issu e o f fact as t o w het her t he defend ant had br eac hed his o bligat ions t o t he plaint iff . T her efo re , t he co ur t co nclude d t hat t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in ho ldin g t ha t t he pla int iff’s su it wa s d efe at ed as a ma t t er o f law be ca us e h e d id1-06-2304

10

no t r ea lize t he br ea ch wh en he init iall y r ec eiv ed t he po licy. In th i s ca se, p l ai

ntif f i s n ot deny i ng th e ef f ecti vene ss of the l anguag e of

the p oli cy i tself
. Inst ead , he alleges t hat defend ant s failed t o fu lfi ll their o bligat ions p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 of t he Cons um er F raud A

ct when they m i sreprese nted the c onten

t of the pol i cy i n s el l i ng i t to plai ntif f
. Un de r th es e c i

rcu m sta nc e, purs ua nt to Bl ack

and Perelm

an , p laintiff’s failure t o k now t he co nt ent of hi s policy

is n ot an absolute bar to hi s Consumer Fraud Act cause of action and the co unt was, there f ore, erroneousl

y di sm i sse d by the c ourt. We turn now to defenda

nts’ contenti on that t he consum er fraud count could h

ave b een al terna tiv el y di sm i sse d purs uan t to t he economi c-l oss doc trin

e. Pursuant to the Country Mutual court ’s reasoni

ng, we f in d that plai ntif f’ s Consum

er Fraud Act cau se o f act ion is no t bar re d by t he ec ono mic-loss do ct rine. In Country Mutual , the insured brought suit al

le gin g a vi olation of 2-2201(a) of the Code of Ci vi l Procedure, whi

ch provides that an insur er “shall exer cise o rd inary car e and skill in renewing, pr oc ur ing, binding, or placing t he
cove rage r eque sted b

y the i ns ured or pr

oposed i ns ured” (735 IL CS 5/2 -2201 (a) (W est 200 4)). On ap pea l, t he insur ed c ont ende d t hat t he t rial co ur t had e rr ed in dismissing t he claim as bar re d by the economi

c-loss doctrin

e. The Country Mutual

court expl

ai ned: “Th e ec onom i c-loss doc trin

e, or Moorman

do ct r ine , ha s it s I llino is r o o t s in [ Moor man Ma nuf ac turi ng Co. v . Na

ti ona l Tan k C o. , 91 Il

l . 2d 69 ( 1982) ]. In Moorman , th e p l ai

nti f f sued to rec ove

r da mag esun de r v ari oustort ca

us esof act ion r esu lting fro m ‘an alleged cr ack in a gr ain-st or age t ank. ’ [C itat ion. ] T he Supreme Court of

Il l i noi s rea sone d the

plai ntif f could not rec over u

nde r the tort1-06-2304

11

the ori esupon

f i nd i ng ‘a t com m on l aw , pu rel y ec onom i c l oss wa s g en era l l y not
re co ver able in to rt .’ [ Cita t ion. ] T he co ur t co nclude d t hat co nt ra ct law, pr ot ect ing expectation i

nterests, pro vi

ded ‘ “the proper st andard when a qual itativ e defe ct [was ] i nv olv ed.’ ” [Ci tations.] The Moorman

do ct r ine , ho we ve r , do es no t ap ply w he n a du t y ar ise s t ha t is ext ra co nt ra ct ual. [Cit at ion. ] Fo r inst ance , in [ Kan ter v. Deitel

baum , 271 Ill . App. 3d 750 (1995)], t he Fi

rst District rejected the argume nt the Moorman

do ct rine bar re d a c laim against an insur ance bro ker who failed t o p ro cur e t he hea lthin surance cove

rage as agreed. [Ci

tation.] The court reasoned the broker, who had a f i duci ary duty to the i ns ured, h ad a d uty that aros e outsi

de th e con

tract.” Country Mutual , 366 Ill . App. 3d at 767-68, quo ting Moorman , 91 Ill . 2d at 72, and Fi rs t Mi dw es t Ba nk, N. A . v . Stewa

rt Ti tl e G ua ran ty Co. , 218 Ill . 2d 326, 337 (2006 ). T he co ur t co nc lud ed t ha t t he du t y cr ea t ed by se ct io n 2
- 22 01 ( a) o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pr oc edu re , like t he fiduciar y dut y in Kan ter , w as a n ext ra co nt ra ct ual du t y. Acco rd ingly, the
econ omi c-l oss doc trin

e di d not b ar the

i ns ured’ s cl ai m . In thi s c as e, p l ai

nti f f ad va nc ed a s tatutor

y consu mer f rau d c l ai m pur suan t to se cti on 2of the Consum

er Fraud Act. It foll

ows that t he obl

iga tions wh ic h pl ai ntif f al le ges def endan ts fai le d to ful fi ll in mi srepresenti

ng the m aterial facts of the

policy were created by

the statut e. Put another way , the duties that pla in tif f al le ges were vi

olated arose out si de of any contract between the parties. Becaus e these duties were extracontractual, li

ke the Country Mutual

and Kan ter1-06-2304

3 Def endan ts do not di spute th

at they were ei ther “ i ns uran ce produ cer[s ], registered

f i rm [s 12 courts, we

f i nd th at plai ntif f ’scaus e of

action i s n

ot barre d by

the e conom

i c-l oss doc trin

e. We fur t he rno t e t ha t de fen da nt s g en er ally a r gu e t hr o ug ho ut t he ir b r ief t ha t pla int iff’s su it
wasproperl

y di sm i sse d be caus e pl

ai ntif f can not sh ow that he was

dam aged by def endan ts’ f ail ure to obtain the

requested poli cy . The parties agree that plai ntif f was entitl ed to and coll ected
wor ker’ s c om pen sa ti on b en ef i ts f rom th e state af ter h e w as i n j ur ed on th e j ob an

d def en da n ts argue t hat because he was abl e to collect those benefi

ts, he was not damaged by defendan ts’
ac ti on s i n f ai l i n g to ob tai n th e req ue ste d c ov erag e. How ev

er , de f en da n ts f ai l to ci te a uth ori ty wh i ch woul d supp ort th ei

r ar gum en t tha t plai nti f f coul d n ot col l ec t work er’ s c om pe ns ati on bene f i ts an d also coll ect b enef

i ts f or whi ch he had con tracted wi th a pri va te i ns uran ce c omp an

y . Acco rdingly, we r egar d t his argument as waived. See 2 10 I ll . 2d R. 3 41( i); Libert yvil le To yot a v. U. S. Bank , 371 Ill . App. 3d 1009, 1017 (2007) (“argumen ts presented in

an appel la te brief that
are n ot supported b

y relev an t authori ty a re wa i ve d”). Fi nal ly , we addr ess plai

ntif f’s s econd co ntention: that reversal i s warranted because Henderson b

reached h is statut ory duty to exerci se ordin ary ca re in procuring pl

ai ntif f’ s poli cy pursuan t to secti on 2-2 201(a

) of th e Code of C i vi l Procedu re. Specifi cal l y , secti on 2-2201(a) of

the Code of

Ci vi l Procedure provi

des: “A n i nsuran ce producer, registered fi

rm, an d li mi ted ins urance representative shal

l e xerci se ordin

ary ca re and ski ll in renewi ng, procuring, bi ndi ng, or placi

ng the coverage requested b y the in sured or pro posed insured.” 735 IL CS 5/2 -2201 (a) (W est 200 4). 31-06-2304

or] l i m i ted i ns uran ce re pres en tativ e[s].” 735 IL CS 5/2 -2201 (a) (W est 200 4). 13 The Country Mutual

cour t co nstrued sect ion 2-2201(a) t o mean that insurance producers, in cludi ng agents, have a duty “to act with ordinary care in procuring i

nsurance f

or insureds” ( Country Mutual , 36 6 I ll. A pp . 3d at 76 6) an d h eld t ha t t he pla int iff in t ha t ca se ha d s t at ed a c laim f or brea ch of that duty
. As d efe nda nt s no t e, t his a llega t io n, t hat He nde rs o n br ea che d his st at ut o ry d ut y t o pla int iff, was not r aised i

n plain tiff ’s am ended complai

nt nor was it raised in response to defendants’ motion to dism

is s pl ai ntif f’ s am ended com

pla in t. Though plai

ntif f di d rais e a clai

m of negl ige nce i n h i s or i gi na l com pl ai nt, pl ai nti f f ch ose to plead over th

at c om pl ai nt a nd to pur sue b

rea ch of
con tra ct a n d c on su mer f ra ud cl ai m s, ra th er th an a tor t cl ai m . C on se qu en

tl y , pl ai n ti f f ’s appe l l ate
co nt en t io n t ha t he co uld st at e a ca us e o f ac t io n p ur su an t se ct io n 2
- 22 01 ( a) o f t he Co de o f Civ il Procedure is wai

ved. See O’M al

l ey v. Vi l l age of

Pal os Park , 346 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 56 7, 576 ( 2004) , quot in g Barnett v. Zi on Park District , 171 Ill . 2d 378, 384 (1996) (“ ‘[a]ll egations i n a f ormer
co mplai nt no t inco rpo rat ed in the final amended co mplai nt a re d eemed wa ived’ ”); Mo rg an v. CU NA Mu tual In su ra n ce Soc i ety , 242 Ill . App. 3d 1027, 1029 (1993), quo ting Lemke v. Ken i l worth In su ran ceCo. , 10 9 Il

l . 2d 350 , 35 5 (1 985 ) (“

‘[ i ]s suescon

cerni ng al l eg ed err or not rai sed i n the tri al court are wai

ve d an d, theref ore, can not be rai sed f or the f i rst ti me on a ppea l ’ ”). Pl ai n ti f f n otes th at Country Mutual

was deci ded after hi

s am ended com

pla in t was di sm i sse d an d argues that, there f

ore, we s houl d ignore the w ai ver of h i s se cti on 2-2 201 c l ai

m . This ar gument is unava ili

ng. Tho ugh Country Mutual wa s d ec id ed o n J ul y 14 , 20 06 , t hr ee da ys after the di sm

is sal of plai ntif f’ s am ended com

pla in t, as the Country Mutual

court noted , section 2-1-06-2304

14

22 01 of th e C ode of Ci v i l Pro ce du re , w h i ch estab l i sh ed an i n su ra n ce ag en t’s du ty to act wi th ordinary care i n procurin

g the coverage requested by an i nsured, was en

acted by the General Asse mbly in 1996 and b ecam

e eff ective i n 1997 ( Country Mutual , 3 66 I ll. App. 3d a t 763 , c iting Pub. Act 89-638, §5, eff

. January 1, 1997 (addin

g 735 ILCS 5/2-2201 (West 1998))), several years bef ore p lai ntif f purchased i

nsurance f

rom defendant. Accordingl y, we refuse to excuse plai ntif f ’swai ver of h i s se cti on 2-2 201 c l ai

m . Non eth el es s, we re cog n ize th at, on r em an d f rom an appe l l atecou

rt, a tri al cou rt i s n ot pre cl ude d f rom al l owi ng the pl ai nti f f to am en d or s upp l em en t hi s p l eadi ng s i f the ca se wa s n ot
reman ded wi th speci fi c i nstructions an

d if am endm ent is not incons is

tent with the legal

prin ci ple s
an noun ced b y the a ppel l ate court. Cl

em ons v. Me ch an i cal De vi ce s C o. , 202 Ill . 2d 344, 352-53 (2 00 2) (on

re man d f or a n ew trial, the p l ai

n ti f f wa s n ot prec l uded f rom am en di n g h i s c om pl ai n t to add a n addit ional cou nt) ; Merril l v . Drazek , 58 Ill . App. 3d 455, 457-58 (1978) (because i ssues add re ssed by appe llate a nd su pr eme co ur t on a ppe al did no t include d amage s, o n re mand t o t he t r ial c o ur t , t he pl ain t iff w as no t pr ec lu de d f r o m ame nd ing co mp lain t t o st at e w it h s pe cif icit y a damages claim

); Cra ne Pap er S tock

Co. v . Ch

i cago & North we stern Ry . Co. , 63 Ill . 2d 61, 69 (19 76)(on

rem an d f rom a re ve rs al of su m mary j udg men t wi th d i recti ons tha t the tri al cou rt al l ow for pr ese nt at ion o f evidence t o r eso lve dispu t ed fac t s, t rial co ur t was not pr eclud ed fr om allo wing the pl ai nti f f to am en d a nd su ppl em en t i ts p l eadi ng s) . Th ough wewi l l not a ddr es s th e m eri ts of pl ai nti f f ’s con ten ti on th at he c oul d pr ope rl y sta te a ca us e of ac ti on p urs ua nt s ec ti on 2 -22 01( a) of t he Co de o f Civ il Pr o ce du r e b ec au se t ha t co nt en t io n w as no t r ais ed be fo r e t he t r ial c o ur t , t his opini on does not necessari

ly preclude pla in tif f f rom m ovin g to am end h is compl ai nt to ple ad such1-06-2304

15

a cause of a

ction on rem

and. However, becaus e pl ai ntif f m ay be precl uded from

pursuin g an amendment for so me ot her re aso n or may decide not t o a dvanc e su ch a mo t ion, beca use t he dec ision t o g ra nt or deny su ch a mo t ion is wit hin the t rial co ur t ’s disc re t ion and beca use many f actors go i

nto a court’ s con siderati

on of wh ethe r am endm en t shoul d be al l owed (s ee, e.g. , Goldbe rg v. Rush Un

iv ersi ty Medi cal Center , 3 71 I ll. App. 3d 5 97, 604 (2 007 )) , it wo uld be prem ature to addr

ess the m eri ts of a motion to ame nd th e pl eadi ngs . In sum ma ry, b ecause i

t was not appealed or, alternati vel y, was not adequately

argued, we affir m t he t ria l co ur t ’s d ismissa l o f pla int iff’s br ea ch o f co nt ra ct cla im. B ec au se pla int iff adequat ely

stat ed a cause of action allegin g vi olation of the Consumer Fraud Act and because
suc h cau se o f act ion wa s no t pr eclud ed, as a matt er of law , by plaint iff ’s o bligat ion t o k now t he cont ents o f his insurance policy or by the econo mi c-loss do ctr ine, we reverse the t rial court ’s dism issal of plai ntif f’s consum

er fraud clai

m. Fi nal ly , because it is wai

ved, we refuse to address pl ai nti f f ’s cl ai m tha t he coul d s tatea c au se

of ac ti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2 -22 01 of

the Code of Ci vi l Procedu re. Af f i rmed i n pa rt and reverse d i

n pa rt; ca use rem anded. KA RNEZ IS an

d CUN NINGH AM , JJ., c oncu

r.