Experience, expertise and common sense.
No-Fault Claims Cannot Be Masked as Unjust Enrichment
When a claim for unjust enrichment exists, “the law operates to imply a contract in order to prevent it.” Keywell & Rosenfeld v Bithell, 254 Mich App 300, 327-328 (2002). Contracts are implied only when there is no express contract covering the same subject matter. In Downs, the Court of Appeals opined that the Plaintiff’s insurance policy with Defendant was an “express contract covering the same subject matter” and therefore, a claim for unjust enrichment was not possible. The Court of Appeals ultimately determined that the intervenors were attempting to “sidestep the no-fault act.” It is important for insurance companies to look out for any claims that appear to be seeking no-fault benefits under the guise of another cause of action.
To access the full article: https://bit.ly/3FKvK59