840 S.E.2d 337
Va.2020Background
- Musgrove Construction owned a dump truck that Tommy Musgrove allowed his son and a third party (Truman) to use to harvest timber; the truck was not on company business when it tipped over and spilled logs in 2015.
- Ken Morris Garage summoned FoxFire Towing (the only local operator with heavy equipment); FoxFire used a rotating crane, other wreckers, an excavator, and a skid steer to right the truck, reload logs, remove a knocked-over cherry tree, collect contaminated soil into hazmat barrels (later disposed), tow the truck, and store it behind FoxFire’s owner’s house.
- FoxFire billed Musgrove; initial bill ~$12,380 for recovery/cleanup/tow/administration plus $45/day storage; unpaid storage accrued to $28,980 by suit.
- At trial FoxFire produced evidence of services and standard charges; salvage value of the truck after the accident was $2,000.
- Advisory jury returned a verdict for FoxFire for $56,595.11 (deducting $2,000 salvage); Musgrove’s counterclaims were rejected; Musgrove appealed, arguing recovery should be limited under unjust enrichment principles and that quantum meruit did not apply.
- The trial court denied Musgrove’s motion to strike and entered judgment on the advisory verdict; the Supreme Court reviewed whether quantum meruit or unjust enrichment governs recovery and which charges Musgrove must pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of quantum meruit vs unjust enrichment | FoxFire: quantum meruit (implied contract) supports recovery for its services | Musgrove: services were not requested by owner; unjust enrichment framework applies | Quantum meruit does not apply because Musgrove did not request services; unjust enrichment governs. |
| Recoverability of righting and towing charges | FoxFire: charges for righting truck and towing are reasonable and recoverable | Musgrove: company owner not liable except maybe towing | FoxFire may recover reasonable charges that benefitted Musgrove for righting and towing (including use of crane/wreckers/mileage). |
| Recoverability of storage fees | FoxFire: full storage charges are owed | Musgrove: storage unjustified or should be limited | Storage recovery capped at the truck’s salvage value ($2,000); fees beyond that are not recoverable. |
| Recoverability of scene remediation, log recovery, hazmat disposal, administrative fee | FoxFire: these services were necessary and chargeable | Musgrove: these did not benefit owner and he is not vicariously liable for drivers not on company business | FoxFire cannot recover for log pickup, tree cleanup, hazmat barrel purchase/disposal, use of skid steer/excavator, or its administrative overhead from Musgrove—those did not unjustly enrich Musgrove. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mongold v. Woods, 278 Va. 196 (2009) (quantum meruit measure = reasonable value of services when performed at the request of another)
- Schmidt v. Household Fin. Corp., II, 276 Va. 108 (2008) (elements and measure of unjust enrichment)
- Nedrich v. Jones, 245 Va. 465 (1993) (unjust enrichment principles)
- Marine Dev. Corp. v. Rodak, 225 Va. 137 (1983) (quantum meruit contexts where implied contract arises)
- Dreher v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 272 Va. 390 (2006) (vehicle owner not vicariously liable for permissive user’s negligence absent other facts)
- Haynes Chemical Corp. v. Staples & Staples, 133 Va. 82 (1922) (services rendered at another’s request give rise to implied promise to pay absent circumstances indicating gratuitous service)
- Bowden v. Grindle, 651 A.2d 347 (Me. 1994) (recognizing confusion between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment doctrines)