Goldman v. Metropolitan Life 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 the Appellate Division properly held that the contracts could only be interpreted to grant dismissal
• holding that “there was no unjust enrichment because the matter is controlled by contract”
• finding that because “the disputed terms and conditions [fell] entirely within the . . . contract, there [was] no valid claim for unjust enrichment”
• finding no unjust enrichment claim existed where the plaintiffs alleged that denial of insurance coverage by [the defendants breached the parties’ insurance agreement because “the matter is controlled by contract”
• finding plaintiffs belief that the term “annual” meant 365 days of insurance coverage in the first year was unreasonable in light of contractual language explicitly setting forth the duration of coverage in the initial year
• “Given that the disputed terms and conditions fall entirely within the insurance contract, there is no valid claim for unjust enrichment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).