The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025).

The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss.

On February 26, 2019, a pipe under the kitchen sink separated, which the insured did not discover until he was driving by the house on March 26, 2019. Over the course of 28 days, 174,000 gallons of water flooded the property. A water removal and demolition company was hired to perform repairs. A claim was submitted under the policy with Shelter, The claim. was denied based on exclusions for damage caused by extended water leakage from a plumbing system.

The insured filed suit, alleging Hauk negligently failed to exercise ordinary care and skill in procurng a policy that did not cover the water damage and further alleging that Shelter was liable under the theory of respondeat superior. The defendnts moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion and the insured appealed.

The appellate court noted that Hauk’s statutory duty was to provide the level of coverage actually requested by the insured. While the insured assumed the policy included coverage for the kind of water damage sustained, the insured never actually told Hauk to procure any coverge for water damage. Instead, the insured requested Hauk should procure a policy covering a vacant property while it underwent renovations to its flooring, paint, electrical and plumbing. Hauk satisfied his duty to exercise ordinary care and skill in procurng the coverage requested by the insured for vacant property because he owed the insured no duty to procure coverage for water damage that was never specifically requested.

Therefore, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment.