Unjust Enrichment

Case Examples

• Elements of Unjust Enrichment: Courts have found that "to recover under a theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must demonstrate five elements: (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” Premier Funding Grp. LLC v. Aviva Life & Annuity Co., No. CV-14-01633-PHX-DGC, 2015 WL 789743, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 25, 2015). In Premier, the defendant kept premiums of clients that rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff, even though their contract was not completely finalized. Id. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, such premiums had to be returned to the Plaintiff. Id .
• Unjust enrichment can be used even when neither party was malicious. In Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 224 Ariz. 207, 228 P.3d 943 (Ct. App. 2010), a lender believed that they were a party to a contract with the defendant borrower and therefore granted the defendant borrower a loan. The borrower, who genuinely thought at first that they were in an agreement with the loan servicer, stated they did not have to pay back the loan when they discovered they were not in contract with the Plaintiff. However, the Court found that the borrower could not keep the money as a matter of justice and fairness without paying the loan company back. Id.
• Parties may seek unjust enrichment if a contract was invalid: In SPUS8 Dakota LP v. KNR Contractors LLC, 641 F. Supp. 3d 682 (D. Ariz. 2022), the court found that the contract between the parties was invalid. Therefore, the Plaintiff was able to seek unjust enrichment to get its money back and be made whole, as it was unfair for the other party to keep money to which it was not entitled.