unjust enrichment claim in Pennsylvania

2022To succeed on an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) benefits [were] conferred on [the] defendant by [the] plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by [the] defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for [the] defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Wilson v. Parker, 227 A.3d 343, 353 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2022To succeed on an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) benefits [were] conferred on [the] defendant by [the] plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by [the] defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for [the] defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Wilson v. Parker, 227 A.3d 343 , 353 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2023AmeriPro Search, Inc., 787 A.2d at 991 ; Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203-06 (Pa. Super. 1999).

2021The court opined, “there is no evidence that [Ms. Allen] provided any benefit to [Mr. ____________________________________________ 2 The elements necessary to establish an unjust-enrichment claim are “(1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203 (Pa. Super. 1999). -4- J-S56018-20 Prentiss] after the destruction of the house and the cessati

2020Phillips Gas & Oil Co[.], . . . 157 A.2d 92, 94 ([Pa.] 1959) (‘[The doctrine of unjust enrichment] applies only to situations where there is no legal contract.’); Durham Terrace, Inc. v. Hellertown Borough Auth[.], . . . 148 A.2d 899, 904 ([Pa.] 1959).

2008Phillips Gas & Oil Company, 398 Pa. 100, 105 , 157 A.2d 92, 94 (1959) (‘[The doctrine of unjust enrichment] applies only to situations where there is no legal contract’); Durham Terrace Inc. v. Hellertown Borough Authority, 394 Pa. 623 , 148 A.2d 899 (1959).

2022Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., 967 A.2d 963, 970 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2021Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata will bar a party from raising issues in subsequent litigation that could have been litigated in the first suit, but were not. [FN]The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that “theories of breach of contract and unjust enrichment must be pleaded alternatively in order to allow recovery under the latter theory where an express contract cannot be proven….” Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., … 967 A.2d 963, 970 ([Pa. Super.] 2009) [(emphasis in original)]. … “If a plaintiff fails to prove a cause of action on an express contract, he may not then attempt to pro

2020Phillips Gas & Oil Co[.], . . . 157 A.2d 92, 94 ([Pa.] 1959) (‘[The doctrine of unjust enrichment] applies only to situations where there is no legal contract.’); Durham Terrace, Inc. v. Hellertown Borough Auth[.], . . . 148 A.2d 899, 904 ([Pa.] 1959).

2008Phillips Gas & Oil Company, 398 Pa. 100, 105 , 157 A.2d 92, 94 (1959) (‘[The doctrine of unjust enrichment] applies only to situations where there is no legal contract’); Durham Terrace Inc. v. Hellertown Borough Authority, 394 Pa. 623 , 148 A.2d 899 (1959).

2010This court must concur with Janssen’s position that well-settled Pennsylvania law precludes the availability of this equitable doctrine where, as here, “the relationship between the parties is founded on a written agreement or express contract.” Janssen memorandum in support of nonsuit for unjust enrichment claim, June 11, 2010, pp. 9-10; e.g., Curley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 289 F. Supp.2d 614, 620 (E.D.

2008While it does not appear that this court has expounded upon this rule of law, it has been recognized that this bright-line rule not only has ‘a distinguished common-law pedigree, but it also derives a great deal of justification from bedrock principles of contract law.’ Curley v. Allstate Insurance Company, 289 F. Supp.2d 614, 620 (E.D.

2006In discussing the requirements of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, our Commonwealth’s Supreme Court has stated: “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must make restitution to the other.” Binns v. First National Bank of California, Pennsylvania, 367 Pa. 359, 372 , 80 A.2d 768, 775 (1951) (quoting Restatement (First) of Restitution §1 (1937)).

2006In discussing the requirements of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, our Commonwealth’s Supreme Court has stated: “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must make restitution to the other.” Binns v. First National Bank of California, Pennsylvania, 367 Pa. 359, 372 , 80 A.2d 768, 775 (1951) (quoting Restatement (First) of Restitution §1 (1937)).

2020To state an unjust enrichment claim, there must be: “(1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Limbach Co., LLC v. City of Philadelphia, 905 A.2d 567, 575 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (citation omitted). 10 discern a difference between the merits of these claims and an order recognizing their legal merit.

2019“The polestar of the unjust enrichment inquiry is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched; the intent of the parties is irrelevant.” Limbach v. City of Philadelphia, 905 A.2d 567, 577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (emphasis in original).

2013The School Districts, however, cannot prevail on an unjust enrichment claim where their rights and obligations are established under written agreement — i.e., the Trust Agreement. "[Tjhat principle of quasicontract is not applicable to agreements deliberately entered into by the parties however harsh the provisions of such contracts may seem in the light of subsequent happenings." Third Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 353 Pa. 185, 193 , 44 A.2d 571, 574 (1945).

2013The School Districts, however, cannot prevail on an unjust enrichment claim where their rights and obligations are established under written agreement — i.e., the Trust Agreement. "[Tjhat principle of quasicontract is not applicable to agreements deliberately entered into by the parties however harsh the provisions of such contracts may seem in the light of subsequent happenings." Third Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 353 Pa. 185, 193 , 44 A.2d 571, 574 (1945).

2023David, Ltd., 666 A.2d 327, 328 (Pa.Super. 1995)....The critical inquiry in the application of this doctrine is whether a defendant has been unjustly enriched.

2004David Ltd., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 97 , 666 A.2d 327, 328 (1995).

2019As such, the employment agreements cannot serve as the basis for - 29 - J-S33005-19 dismissing the Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim.19 See Roman Mosaic & Tile, supra at 428 (requiring dismissal in presence of “a written agreement or an express contract”); see also Gutteridge, supra at 917 (imposing a duty under quasi-contract “in . . . the absence of an agreement”).

2019Gutteridge, supra at 917 ; see also ____________________________________________ 20 Though Hill mentions an unjust enrichment claim, the case itself concerns the lower court sustaining a demurrer to a complaint, which this Court subsequently affirmed on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a shareholder strike suit.

2021The doctrine of unjust enrichment “‘does not apply simply because the defendant may have benefited as a result of the actions of the plaintiff.”’ Id. at 896 9 (quoting Styer v. Hugo, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. 1993)).

2013The essential elements of an unjust enrichment claim are “benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Styer v. Hugo, 422 Pa. Super. 262, 267 , 619 A.2d 347, 350 (1993) (quoting Wolf v. Wolf 356 Pa. Super. 365 , 514 A.2d 901 (1986)).

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2020BuyFigure.com, Inc., 76 A.3d at 556-57, 561-62 (res judicata barred second action even though prior action asserted contract and tort claims for damages and second action sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an accounting); Kelly, 887 A.2d at 792 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second action even though prior proceeding was petition to enforce settlement and second action was a complaint asserting an unjust enrichment claim); -9- J-S35033-20 Dempsey, 653 A.2d at 681-83 (cause of action was the same and res judicata barred second proceeding even though prior

2015See Stoeckinger, 948 A.2d at 833 ; Lackner, 892 A.2d at 34 .

2011The doctrine of unjust enrichment “imposes a duty, not as a result of any agreement, whether expressed or implied, but in spite of the absence of an agreement, when one party receives unjust enrichment at the expense of another.” Stoeckinger v. Presidential Financial Corp. of Delaware Valley, 948 A.2d 828, 833 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2008In Wilson Area School District v. Skepton, 586 Pa. 513, 520 , 895 A.2d 1250, 1254 (2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing a long line of rulings of the Penn sylvania Commonwealth and Superior Courts, ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable where the relationship between the parties is founded upon a contract: “We begin our analysis by considering whether the school district is entitled to restitution of the permit fee refund pursuant to the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

2008In Wilson Area School District v. Skepton, 586 Pa. 513, 520 , 895 A.2d 1250, 1254 (2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing a long line of rulings of the Penn sylvania Commonwealth and Superior Courts, ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable where the relationship between the parties is founded upon a contract: “We begin our analysis by considering whether the school district is entitled to restitution of the permit fee refund pursuant to the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

2006The Supreme Court has gone on to state that “it has long been held in this Commonwealth that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract, regardless of how ‘harsh the provisions of such contracts may seem in the light of subsequent happen ings.’” Wilson Area School District v. Skepton, 586 Pa. 513, 520 , 895 A.2d 1250, 1254 (2006); see also, Third National & Trust Company of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, 353 Pa. 185, 193 , 44 A.2d 571, 574 (1945); see also, Schott v. Westinghouse Elect

2006The Supreme Court has gone on to state that “it has long been held in this Commonwealth that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract, regardless of how ‘harsh the provisions of such contracts may seem in the light of subsequent happen ings.’” Wilson Area School District v. Skepton, 586 Pa. 513, 520 , 895 A.2d 1250, 1254 (2006); see also, Third National & Trust Company of Scranton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, 353 Pa. 185, 193 , 44 A.2d 571, 574 (1945); see also, Schott v. Westinghouse Elect

2026The Court then stated that, “[a]s this eventuality [had] not yet come to pass, the OAG’s unjust enrichment claim [was] premature.” Id.

2026The Court then stated that, “[a]s this eventuality [had] not yet come to pass, the OAG’s unjust enrichment claim [was] premature.” Id.

2022Appellants’ claims are premised on Defendants’ nonpayment under the continuing contract and the promissory note. “[T]he doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract.” Wilson v. Parker, 227 A.3d 343, 353 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). - 12 - J-S04017-22 recovery requires a determination that the owner did not withhold payment in good faith. 73 P.S. § 512(a); see, e.g., Waller Corp. v. Warren Plaza, Inc., 95 A.3d 313, 319 (Pa. Super. 2014); Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880, 891 (Pa.

2007Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880 (Pa.Super.2006). ¶ 15 Appellant also argues that Appel-lee’s evidence failed to establish the element of enrichment for purposes of the unjust enrichment claim.

2025See Dubin, 847 A.2d at 771 n.7 (explaining that “[s]ummary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).

2025Toppy v. Passage Bio, Inc., 285 A.3d 672, 687 (Pa.Super. 2022).

2023Wilson v. Parker, 227 A.3d 343, 353 (Pa. Super. 2020); AmeriPro Search, Inc., 787 A.2d at 991 ; see also Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C., 179 A.3d at 1103 (focus of unjust enrichment claim is not on what the parties intended, but rather on whether a party has been unjustly enriched).

2023To prove an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must establish that (1) it conferred benefits on the defendant, (2) the defendant appreciated those benefits, and (3) the defendant accepted and retained those benefits “‘under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for [the defendant] to retain the benefit without payment of value.’” Filippi v. City of Erie, 968 A.2d 239, 242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

2023“In determining if the doctrine applies, our focus is not on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched.” Id.

2023Fanning v. Davne, 795 A.2d 388, 392 (Pa.Super. 2002) (quotation omitted).

2022Appellants’ claims are premised on Defendants’ nonpayment under the continuing contract and the promissory note. “[T]he doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract.” Wilson v. Parker, 227 A.3d 343, 353 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). - 12 - J-S04017-22 recovery requires a determination that the owner did not withhold payment in good faith. 73 P.S. § 512(a); see, e.g., Waller Corp. v. Warren Plaza, Inc., 95 A.3d 313, 319 (Pa. Super. 2014); Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880, 891 (Pa.