Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. v. COMDATA INC., 3:17-cv-01158

CUCS, a telecom company, contracted with Comdata for fleet fuel cards to prepay technicians’ gas; CUCS set spending limits via Comdata’s web platform.
CUCS intended weekly limits, but Comdata configured the cards with daily limits, allowing up to seven times the intended amount to be spent on ~700+ cards.
CUCS discovered the error within a month; Comdata acknowledged it and changed the configuration to weekly limits; parties could not agree on remediation.
CUCS sued alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation/fraud, promissory fraud, breach of warranty, conversion, and unjust enrichment, seeking about $195,000 in damages.
Comdata moved to dismiss portions of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing conversion lacks specificity, unjust enrichment is barred by the written contract, and damages may be limited by a contractual liability cap.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conversion: whether CUCS sufficiently pleaded conversion of money	CUCS alleges Comdata converted identifiable funds spent on cards beyond intended limits; identifiable because tied to specific cards and overspending	Comdata says money is intangible and CUCS failed to identify a specific sum (only alleged an approximate $195,000)	Court: Conversion survives. CUCS identified specific funds (overspent on issued fuel cards); exact damages can be determined later and double recovery will be prevented if necessary.
Unjust enrichment: whether claim is viable despite an express contract	CUCS included unjust enrichment as alternative recovery	Comdata says unjust enrichment is barred because an enforceable contract governs the subject matter	Court: Dismissed. Unjust enrichment unavailable where a valid contract covers the dispute.
Liability limitation: whether contractual cap bars CUCS’s monetary relief	CUCS asserts claims including fraud; did not move to strike clause now	Comdata asks court to dismiss any recovery beyond the contractual limitation	Court: Declined to resolve now. Tennessee law renders liability limits unenforceable for fraud; because fraud is pleaded and not dismissed, enforceability remains for later determination.

DirecTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for construing complaints on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2002) (pleading standards and inferences at motion to dismiss)
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (short-and-plain-statement standard for complaints)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (plaintiff entitled to offer evidence; pleading need not contain all facts)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content to permit plausible inference of liability)
PNC Multifamily Cap. Inst. Fund XXVI Ltd. P’ship v. Bluff City Cmty. Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (money is generally not subject to conversion unless specific and identifiable)
Houghland v. Sec. Alarm & Servs., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 769 (Tenn. 1988) (contractual liability limitations are unenforceable in cases of fraud)