Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealunjust enrichment
contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealunjust enrichment

Related Cases

Long v. Dell, Inc., 93 A.3d 988
View Case »
Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. Famous Music Corp., 557 F.2d 918, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 16
View Case »
Selcke v. New England Ins. Co., 995 F.2d 688
View Case »
Marcoux v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, 524 F.3d 33, 65 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 676
View Case »
Maurice Elec. Supply Co., Inc. v. Anderson Safeway Guard Rail Corp., 632 F.Supp. 1082
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Superior Steel, Inc. v. Ascent at Roebling’s Bridge, LLC, 540 S.W.3d 770

Facts

The Ascent at Roebling's Bridge is a luxury condominium project in Covington, Kentucky, developed by Corporex and owned by The Ascent at Roebling's Bridge, LLC. Corporex hired Dugan & Meyers Construction Company (D&M) as the general contractor, who in turn contracted with subcontractors Superior Steel, Inc. and Ben Hur Construction Company. After changes in design led to additional work, the subcontractors were not compensated for this extra work or the retainage owed under their contracts. They filed a lawsuit against D&M, Ascent, and Corporex for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other claims.

The Ascent at Roebling's Bridge is a luxury condominium project in Covington, Kentucky, developed by Corporex and owned by The Ascent at Roebling's Bridge, LLC. Corporex hired Dugan & Meyers Construction Company (D&M) as the general contractor, who in turn contracted with subcontractors Superior Steel, Inc. and Ben Hur Construction Company.

Issue

The main legal issues include whether the subcontractors had an adequate remedy at law against the general contractor, whether the general contractor breached its contract with the subcontractors, and whether the subcontractors were entitled to attorney fees.

The main legal issues include whether the subcontractors had an adequate remedy at law against the general contractor, whether the general contractor breached its contract with the subcontractors, and whether the subcontractors were entitled to attorney fees.

Rule

To recover on a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove: (1) benefit conferred upon the defendant at the plaintiff's expense; (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by the defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of that benefit without payment for its value.

To recover on a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove: (1) benefit conferred upon the defendant at the plaintiff's expense; (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by the defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of that benefit without payment for its value.

Analysis

The court analyzed the unjust enrichment claim by determining that the subcontractors did not have an adequate legal remedy against the general contractor due to the contractual gridlock caused by the landowner's failure to pay. The court found that the subcontractors conferred a benefit on the landowner through their work, which was not compensated, thus meeting the criteria for unjust enrichment. The court also concluded that the general contractor did not breach its contract with the subcontractors as the payment was contingent upon receiving payment from the landowner.

The court analyzed the unjust enrichment claim by determining that the subcontractors did not have an adequate legal remedy against the general contractor due to the contractual gridlock caused by the landowner's failure to pay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the subcontractors could maintain their unjust enrichment claim against the landowner, but were not entitled to attorney fees.

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the subcontractors could maintain their unjust enrichment claim against the landowner, but were not entitled to attorney fees.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the subcontractors, Superior and Ben Hur, as they were allowed to maintain their unjust enrichment claim against the landowner despite the contractual issues with the general contractor.

The prevailing party was the subcontractors, Superior and Ben Hur, as they were allowed to maintain their unjust enrichment claim against the landowner despite the contractual issues with the general contractor.

You must be