unjust enrichment claim in Connecticut

1994During oral argument on the motion, plaintiff asked the court to direct its attention to Burns v. Koellmer , 11 Conn. App. 375 , (1987) and to Bolmer v. Kocet , 6 Conn. App. 595 (1985) which plaintiff claims allows an unjust enrichment claim in similar circumstances when there has been no finding of a cause of action for a § 31-71e violation.

1992Our Appellate Court has stated that in order to recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment "it must be shown that the defendants were benefited, that the benefit was unjust in that it was not paid for by the defendants, and that the failure of payment operated to the detriment of the plaintiff." Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 , 385 (1987) citing Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso, 170 Conn. 659 , 665-66 (1976).

1999The plaintiffs assert that it would be dangerous to read Gupta v. New Britain Hospital , supra, 239 Conn. 574 , as immunizing private schools from liability for unjust enrichment.

1999The plaintiffs assert that it would be dangerous to read Gupta v. New Britain Hospital , supra, 239 Conn. 574 , as immunizing private schools from liability for unjust enrichment.

1996Unjust enrichment applies when there are no legal remedies pursuant to contract, the defendant must be shown to have benefited, the benefit was unjust because it wasn't paid for by the defendant and the failure to pay operated to the defendant's detriment, A C Corporation v. Pernaselci, 2 Conn. App. 264 , 265 (1984), Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso, 170 Conn. 659 , 665 (1976).

1992Our Appellate Court has stated that in order to recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment "it must be shown that the defendants were benefited, that the benefit was unjust in that it was not paid for by the defendants, and that the failure of payment operated to the detriment of the plaintiff." Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 , 385 (1987) citing Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso, 170 Conn. 659 , 665-66 (1976).

1999"The right of recovery for unjust enrichment is equitable, `its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for the defendant to retain benefit which has come to him at the expense of the plaintiff.'" National CSS Inc., v. Stamford , 195 Conn. 587 , 597 ; Schleicher v. Schleicher , 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A.2d 162 (1935). "`Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to a contract. 55 Williston Contracts (Rev.

1995II Unjust Enrichment "A right of recovery under [the doctrine of unjust enrichment] is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience CT Page 8416 for the defendant to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of the plaintiff." Schleicher v Schleicher 120 Conn. 528 , 534 .

1990The question is: Did he, to the detriment of someone else, obtain something of value to which he was not entitled?' Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 ; Schleicher v. Schleicher, 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 .

1990The question is: Did he, to the detriment of someone else, obtain something of value to which he was not entitled?' Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 ; Schleicher v. Schleicher, 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 .

2002"Unjust enrichment applies wherever justice requires compensation to be given for property or services rendered under a contract, and no remedy is available by an action on the contract. . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc. , 250 Conn. 500 , 511 , 735 A.2d 813 (1999). "[L]ack of a remedy under a contract is a CT Page 14660 precondition for recovery based upon unjust enrichment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Paulsen v. Kronberg , 66 Conn. App. 876 , 878 , 786 A.2d 453 (2001).

2002"Unjust enrichment applies wherever justice requires compensation to be given for property or services rendered under a contract, and no remedy is available by an action on the contract. . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc. , 250 Conn. 500 , 511 , 735 A.2d 813 (1999). "[L]ack of a remedy under a contract is a CT Page 14660 precondition for recovery based upon unjust enrichment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Paulsen v. Kronberg , 66 Conn. App. 876 , 878 , 786 A.2d 453 (2001).

1997"Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to contract." A C Corp. v. CT Page 3857 Pernaselci, 2 Conn. App. 264 , 265 (1984); Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 , 387 (1987).

1996Unjust enrichment applies when there are no legal remedies pursuant to contract, the defendant must be shown to have benefited, the benefit was unjust because it wasn't paid for by the defendant and the failure to pay operated to the defendant's detriment, A C Corporation v. Pernaselci, 2 Conn. App. 264 , 265 (1984), Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso, 170 Conn. 659 , 665 (1976).

1993Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242 , 246 (1971), citing 5 Williston, Contracts (Rev.

1992In accord with this general rule that no element of appreciation or knowledge of wrongdoing by a defendant is required are Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242 (1971); Garwood Sons Const. Co., Inc. v. Centos Associated Ltd., 8 Conn. App. 185 (1986); Montanaro Bros.

1990Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 530-31 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988); Good v. Paine Furniture Co., 35 Conn. Sup. 24, 27-28 , 391 A.2d 741 (1978); see 3 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 375, comment a, illustration 3.

1989Similarly, in Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 532 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988), the Appellate Court rejected an unjust enrichment challenge to a listing agreement and reiterated that “ ‘listing contracts are governed exclusively by section 20-325a. . . .’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Consequently, a challenge to the validity of this listing agreement based on § 20-325b is not relevant.

1990Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 530-31 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988); Good v. Paine Furniture Co., 35 Conn. Sup. 24, 27-28 , 391 A.2d 741 (1978); see 3 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 375, comment a, illustration 3.

1989Similarly, in Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 532 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988), the Appellate Court rejected an unjust enrichment challenge to a listing agreement and reiterated that “ ‘listing contracts are governed exclusively by section 20-325a. . . .’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Consequently, a challenge to the validity of this listing agreement based on § 20-325b is not relevant.

1989Similarly, in Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 532 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988), the Appellate Court rejected an unjust enrichment challenge to a listing agreement and reiterated that “ ‘listing contracts are governed exclusively by section 20-325a. . . .’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Consequently, a challenge to the validity of this listing agreement based on § 20-325b is not relevant.

1989Similarly, in Currie v. Marano, 13 Conn. App. 527, 532 , 537 A.2d 1036 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 809 , 541 A.2d 1238 (1988), the Appellate Court rejected an unjust enrichment challenge to a listing agreement and reiterated that “ ‘listing contracts are governed exclusively by section 20-325a. . . .’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Consequently, a challenge to the validity of this listing agreement based on § 20-325b is not relevant.

2026Under the circumstances of the present case, in which L’s liability has already been accepted by his insurer, the diminution in value and loss of January 6, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 4 353 Conn. 845 JANUARY, 2026 3 Orlando v. Liburd use damages claimed by the plaintiff have been recognized, and N Co. has exhausted all of the coverage that might have been available to compensate the plaintiff for those damages under L’s insurance policy, the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was ripe for adjudication, and only the amount of the plaintiff’s damages for loss of use and diminution in val

2026The unjust enrichment claim is based on Nationwide’s allegedly wrongful enforce- January 6, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 6 353 Conn. 845 JANUARY, 2026 5 Orlando v. Liburd ment of its subrogation rights against the defendant, Ernest Liburd, prior to the adjudication of the plaintiff’s negligence action against Liburd.1 The trial court con- cluded, and the Appellate Court agreed, that the plain- tiff’s claim was not ripe for adjudication under the make whole doctrine until the plaintiff first obtained a judg- ment against Liburd.

2026Section 49-41 requires that the general contractor provide a payment bond with surety to the state or governmental subdivision, which bond shall guarantee payment to those who supply labor and materials on a public works project. . . . [General Statutes §] 49-42 provides that any person who has performed work or supplied materials on a public works project, but who has not received full payment for such materials or work, may enforce his right to pay- ment under the payment bond.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Concrete Products, Inc. v. NJR Construction, LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551 ,

2025The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s responses to the [defen- dant’s] requests for admissions [in which the plaintiff admitted, inter alia, that the defendant did not owe any money to the plaintiff] precluded any recovery on its unjust enrichment claim, except for the property tax payments that the defendant conceded that she owed to the plaintiff.’’ (Footnotes omitted.) JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak, 192 Conn. App. 688 , 692–97, 218 A.3d 596 (2019), aff’d, 341 Conn. 750 , 267 A.3d 753 (2022).

2024Because we conclude that the court’s finding that Cohan was entitled, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Cole v. Myers, 128 Conn. 223, 230 , 21 A.2d 396 (1941), to recover $9000 for the reasonable value of the services he performed on the plaintiff’s behalf is not clearly erroneous, we need not reach Cohan’s claim with respect to unjust enrichment.

2024Because we conclude that the court’s finding that Cohan was entitled, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Cole v. Myers, 128 Conn. 223, 230 , 21 A.2d 396 (1941), to recover $9000 for the reasonable value of the services he performed on the plaintiff’s behalf is not clearly erroneous, we need not reach Cohan’s claim with respect to unjust enrichment.

2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).

2022The doctrine of unjust enrichment ‘‘is based upon the principle that one should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another but should be required to make restitution of or for property received, retained or appropriated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gibson v. Jefferson Woods Commu- nity, Inc., 206 Conn. App. 303, 314 , 260 A.3d 1244 , cert. denied, 339 Conn. 911 , 261 A.3d 747 (2021). ‘‘A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situa- tion it is contrary to equity and good conscience

2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).

2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).

2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).

2021That is, because the plaintiff had prevailed on his breach of contract claim, and because the plaintiff’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were mutually exclusive (i.e., legally inconsistent) theories of liability, the court, relying on Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 328 Conn. 709, 724 , 183 A.3d 1164 (2018), rendered judgment for the defendants on the unjust enrichment claim ‘‘subject to being reinstated as the operative judgment for the plaintiff should there be a determination that judgment improperly [was rendered] in favor of the plaintiff on the breach of contract co

2021That is, because the plaintiff had prevailed on his breach of contract claim, and because the plaintiff’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were mutually exclusive (i.e., legally inconsistent) theories of liability, the court, relying on Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 328 Conn. 709, 724 , 183 A.3d 1164 (2018), rendered judgment for the defendants on the unjust enrichment claim ‘‘subject to being reinstated as the operative judgment for the plaintiff should there be a determination that judgment improperly [was rendered] in favor of the plaintiff on the breach of contract co

2019The defendants, quoting Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. , supra, 230 Conn. at 340 , 644 A.2d 1297 , contend that DRULPA "created rights based on unique statutory relationships that did not exist at common law," and, therefore, the three-year statute of limitations in § 17-607 (c) is "one of the 'congeries of elements necessary to establish the right.' " Although DRULPA created a statutory framework that did not exist at common law, the plaintiff does not seek to recover under DRULPA or any of the statutory rights created therein; it seeks recovery solely under the common-law doctrine of unjust en

2019The defendants, quoting Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. , supra, 230 Conn. at 340 , 644 A.2d 1297 , contend that DRULPA "created rights based on unique statutory relationships that did not exist at common law," and, therefore, the three-year statute of limitations in § 17-607 (c) is "one of the 'congeries of elements necessary to establish the right.' " Although DRULPA created a statutory framework that did not exist at common law, the plaintiff does not seek to recover under DRULPA or any of the statutory rights created therein; it seeks recovery solely under the common-law doctrine of unjust en

2019As our case law makes clear, the only remedy a plain- tiff can obtain with respect to an unjust enrichment claim is ‘‘an award of money damages.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Id., 233 .

2018The plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim not only relied on the defendant's intentions not to release his workers' compensation claim and to do all that was necessary to carry that into effect, but also on other misrepresentations contained in the agreement, such as the statements indicating the defendant believed that he had sufficient time to review the agreement and that $70,228.51 was more than he was **752 entitled to receive. 14 See Brown v. Bridgeport Police Dept. , 155 Conn. App. 61 , 70, 107 A.3d 1013 (2015) (third situation was implicated because pleading "set forth distinct legal the

2018The plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim not only relied on the defendant's intentions not to release his workers' compensation claim and to do all that was necessary to carry that into effect, but also on other misrepresentations contained in the agreement, such as the statements indicating the defendant believed that he had sufficient time to review the agreement and that $70,228.51 was more than he was **752 entitled to receive. 14 See Brown v. Bridgeport Police Dept. , 155 Conn. App. 61 , 70, 107 A.3d 1013 (2015) (third situation was implicated because pleading "set forth distinct legal the