Crosse v. BCBSD, INC.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that unjust enrichment claims brought with breach of contract claims are legal claims
• explaining that an unjust enrichment claim is an “off-the- contract theory of recovery” and is a legal, not an equitable claim
• explaining when an unjust-enrichment claim is brought as “an off-the-contract theory of recovery that accompanies the breach of contract allegations[,]” the claim is a “legal, not equitable claim”, over which “[t]he Superior Court typically has jurisdiction”
• alter ego theory applies where dominant person or company “has created a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors”
• “[T]he plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that the corporation . . . has created a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors.”
• “[T]he plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that the corporation, through its alter-ego, has created a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).