Drs. Bethea, Moustoukas & Weaver LLC v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Louisiana law barred the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim due to the existence of a valid contract defining the plaintiff’s insurance coverage
• holding that Louisiana law barred the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim due to the existence of a valid contract defining the plaintiff’s insurance coverage
• observing that “Louisiana law recognizes certain situations where a plaintiff's reliance on a promise is unreasonable as a matter of law” and that Omnitech International, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1330 (5th Cir. 1994
• “[O]nly the unjust enrichment for which there is no justification in law or contract allows equity a role in adjudication.”
• “[O]nly the unjust enrichment for which there is no justification in law or contract allows equity a role in the adjudication.”
• “Louisiana law provides that no unjust enrichment claim shall lie when the claim is based on a relationship that is controlled by an enforceable contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).