Nesby v. Country Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the rule exists because “[t]he theory of unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy based upon a contract implied in law,” a cause of action for “unjust enrichment is only available when there is no adequate remedy at law”
• dismissing plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because plaintiff had entered into a contract with defendant for “an automobile insurance policy [which] governed the relationship of the parties”
• pleading must state each cause of action in a separate count
• pleading must state each cause of action in a separate count
• “Where there is a specific contract that governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”
• “Where there is a specific contract that governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).