HB3358 amends the Illinois Insurance Code to add a new Section 2.3 governing the use of secondary sources in insurance-related legal analysis. The bill states that secondary sources such as legal treatises, scholarly publications, textbooks, and other explanatory texts do not themselves constitute Illinois law or public policy. It further provides that these materials are not persuasive authority if they attempt to create, eliminate, expand, or restrict a cause of action, right, or remedy, or if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, state law, Illinois case law precedent, or other common law adopted by the state.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at limiting the legal weight of nonbinding insurance commentary in disputes and court proceedings. It does not change substantive insurance coverage rules directly, but it would affect how courts, litigants, and attorneys may rely on secondary materials when interpreting insurance law. The bill is effective immediately if enacted.
Impact
The bill would add a new statutory provision to the Illinois Insurance Code clarifying that secondary sources on insurance are not law and cannot be treated as persuasive authority when they conflict with controlling legal sources or attempt to alter legal rights and remedies. This would likely influence judicial interpretation and litigation strategy in insurance cases by narrowing the role of treatises, textbooks, and similar materials, while leaving existing constitutional, statutory, and common-law authorities unchanged.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a technical or clarifying measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented public debate or formal legislative sentiment in the materials supplied. The bill’s framing suggests an intent to reinforce existing hierarchy-of-authority principles in insurance law.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether the bill unduly limits courts’ ability to use respected secondary sources as interpretive guidance in insurance disputes. Supporters would likely view it as a clarification that prevents nonbinding commentary from being treated as law, while critics might argue that it could discourage useful legal analysis or create uncertainty about when secondary materials may still be cited. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided materials as taking either side.
Requests the Governor to clarify the duties of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and authorize certain actions by the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the State Board of Education
Proposing a constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads, to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts, and to except certain appropriations to pay for school district ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations.
Proposing a constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads, to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts, and to except certain appropriations to pay for school district ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations.