934 N.W.2d 805
Mich.2019Background
- Genesee County administered BCBSM group health plans; the Genesee County Drain Commissioner (Wright) participated and paid premiums though his office is statutorily autonomous.
- BCBSM audited the plans and refunded what it concluded were excess collective premiums; the county deposited the refund into its general fund and refused Wright’s demand for his office’s share.
- Wright sued alleging contract and intentional-tort claims (conversion, fraud); the trial court limited contract damages under the six-year statute and denied dismissal of torts; the Court of Appeals later held the intentional-tort claims barred by the GTLA and affirmed the contract-limitation ruling.
- Wright amended to assert unjust enrichment (seeking restitution), the county moved to dismiss under the GTLA, trial court denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the GTLA did not bar the unjust-enrichment claim.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review and considered whether unjust-enrichment claims are barred by the GTLA when asserted against a governmental agency; the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust-enrichment claim is barred by the GTLA | Wright: unjust enrichment is an independent restitutionary cause of action seeking restitution (not compensatory damages), so GTLA immunity does not apply | County: the claim is effectively a tort (conversion/fraud) or contract-like and therefore barred by the GTLA | Held: GTLA does not bar unjust-enrichment claim because it is neither tort nor contract and seeks restitution rather than compensatory damages |
| Whether unjust enrichment is distinct from tort/contract for GTLA purposes | Wright: unjust enrichment corrects a benefit retained and is independent of tort/contract, historically rooted in restitution/assumpsit | County: unjust enrichment ultimately involves contract liability (or is a disguised tort) and should fall within Bradley Estate framework | Held: Unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action with restitutionary remedy, so Bradley Estate does not bar this claim |
| Whether Bradley Estate controls to categorize all noncontractual claims as torts for GTLA | County: Bradley Estate broadly defines “tort liability” to include noncontractual civil wrongs for compensatory relief | Wright: Bradley Estate should be read to bar only claims seeking compensatory damages for noncontractual civil wrongs | Held: Court limits Bradley Estate’s scope—it bars actions that seek compensatory damages for noncontractual civil wrongs, but not restitution claims for unjust enrichment |
| Whether Wright’s unjust-enrichment claim is restitution at law (assumpsit) or equitable; implication for GTLA | Wright: seeks money judgment (restitution at law) to recover office’s share; thus not subject to GTLA | County: argued claim mirrors tort or contractual duties and so is barred | Held: Wright sought restitution (money judgment) to correct unjust benefit; GTLA immunity inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (Mich. 2013) (discusses scope of "tort liability" under GTLA and holds GTLA bars noncontractual civil wrongs seeking compensatory damages)
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co., Inc v East China Twp Sch, 443 Mich 176 (Mich. 1993) (recognizes unjust enrichment and restitution as equitable remedy permitting recovery for unjust benefit)
- Great-West Life & Annuity Ins Co v Knudson, 534 US 204 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes restitution at law (money judgment) from restitution in equity and discusses assumpsit framework)
- McCreary v Shields, 333 Mich 290 (Mich. 1952) (formulates unjust-enrichment principle: one must not profit inequitably at another’s expense)
- Fisher Sand & Gravel Co v Neal A Sweebe, Inc, 494 Mich 543 (Mich. 2013) (discusses assumpsit, abolition of forms, and preservation of substantive restitutionary remedies)