Peter Kossian v. American National Insurance Co. case brief summary
254 Cal. App. 2d 647
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Fresno County (California) that granted defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff's action to recover insurance money for work performed involving cleanup and removal of debris after fire.
OVERVIEW: Owner of an inn that burned down contracted with plaintiff to clean up the debris, but declared bankruptcy after the clean up was finished. The property was subject to a deed of trust in which defendant was the beneficiary. Defendant had no knowledge of the agreement between owner and plaintiff. The lower court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff's action to recover insurance money for work performed in the cleanup and removal of the debris; plaintiff appealed.
ARGUMENTS:
-Defendant argued that plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contracts, while defendant had a contract right to collect indemnity for losses resulting from the fire, including the debris removal cost. -Plaintiff argued that defendant should not have been allowed to have the fruits of plaintiff's labor and also the money value of that labor.
HOLDING:
The court reversed the lower court's judgment because the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to situations regardless of the intent of the parties.
ANALYSIS:
Defendant's indemnity payment was based in part upon a claim of loss that did not exist because plaintiff had already remedied the loss by his work for which he was not paid.
RULES:
-The most prevalent implied-in-fact contract recognized under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is predicated upon a relationship between the parties from which the court infers an intent.
-However, the doctrine also recognizes an obligation imposed by law regardless of the intent of the parties.
-In these instances there need be no relationship that gives substance to an implied intent basic to the contract concept, rather the obligation is imposed because good conscience dictates that under the circumstances the person benefited should make reimbursement.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment based upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment under which defendant could not have been indemnified twice for the same loss, once by plaintiff's labor and materials and again by the proceeds of the fire insurance.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
254 Cal. App. 2d 647
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Fresno County (California) that granted defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff's action to recover insurance money for work performed involving cleanup and removal of debris after fire.
OVERVIEW: Owner of an inn that burned down contracted with plaintiff to clean up the debris, but declared bankruptcy after the clean up was finished. The property was subject to a deed of trust in which defendant was the beneficiary. Defendant had no knowledge of the agreement between owner and plaintiff. The lower court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff's action to recover insurance money for work performed in the cleanup and removal of the debris; plaintiff appealed.
ARGUMENTS:
-Defendant argued that plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contracts, while defendant had a contract right to collect indemnity for losses resulting from the fire, including the debris removal cost. -Plaintiff argued that defendant should not have been allowed to have the fruits of plaintiff's labor and also the money value of that labor.
HOLDING:
The court reversed the lower court's judgment because the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to situations regardless of the intent of the parties.
ANALYSIS:
Defendant's indemnity payment was based in part upon a claim of loss that did not exist because plaintiff had already remedied the loss by his work for which he was not paid.
RULES:
-The most prevalent implied-in-fact contract recognized under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is predicated upon a relationship between the parties from which the court infers an intent.
-However, the doctrine also recognizes an obligation imposed by law regardless of the intent of the parties.
-In these instances there need be no relationship that gives substance to an implied intent basic to the contract concept, rather the obligation is imposed because good conscience dictates that under the circumstances the person benefited should make reimbursement.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment based upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment under which defendant could not have been indemnified twice for the same loss, once by plaintiff's labor and materials and again by the proceeds of the fire insurance.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment