122 So. 3d 1146
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Insultech, as subcontractor, contracted with ILES under a Master Service Agreement to supply labor, materials, and equipment for the BP oil spill cleanup project.
- Invoices were due 30 days after issuance (on the 15th and last day of each month) with 1.5% monthly interest for late payment.
- The BP-ILES contract allegedly ran concurrent with the BP oil spill project and its extensions; ILES allegedly stopped paying Insultech starting September 2010.
- Insultech sought more than $2,550,000 for services rendered; BP’s cap on payments to ILES is central to Insultech’s amended petition against BP.
- BP allegedly continued to request services from ILES after the cap was reached, causing ILES to withhold payment to Insultech; Insultech claims BP is unjustly enriched and liable for abuse of rights.
- The trial court granted BP’s exception of no cause of action, dismissing Insultech’s amended petition; Insultech appeals, arguing unjust enrichment, abuse of rights, and error in denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment against BP | Insultech asserts BP was unjustly enriched after the cap was exceeded and BP failed to pay ILES and thus Insultech. | BP contends there is an adequate contractual remedy against ILES, not unjust enrichment against BP. | No unjust enrichment against BP; other remedies exist against ILES. |
| Abuse of rights against BP | Insultech argues BP abused its rights by imposing an unjust cap to harm Insultech. | BP did not misuse its rights to Insultech; cap affects ILES, not Insultech directly. | Insultech fails to state abuse of rights; two elements not met. |
| Leave to amend after no-cause-of-action ruling | Insultech should be allowed to amend to state a valid claim against BP. | Amendment would be futile; lack of any viable BP claim cannot be cured by amendment. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no amendment allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., 648 So.2d 888 (La. 1995) (five elements of unjust enrichment; subsidiary remedy)
- Fagot v. Parsons, 958 So.2d 750 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (five elements of unjust enrichment; alternative remedies matter)
- Walters v. MedSouth Record Management, LLC, 38 So.3d 243 (La. 2010) (unjust enrichment is subsidiary, fills gaps when no express remedy)
- Mouton v. State, 525 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (restatement on subsidiarity of unjust enrichment)
- Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 753 So.2d 861 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1999) (no cause of action standard; petition must state legal entitlement)
- Smith v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 869 So.2d 909 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (amendment discretion when not a viable cure)
- Lee v. Pennington, 830 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (abuse of rights doctrine prerequisites)
- Jackson v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 785 So.2d 803 (La. 2001) (de novo review for exception of no cause of action)