195 Conn.App. 486
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- In July 2010 Piccolo purchased a used 1997 Chevy Lumina from American Auto Sales for $2,398; he alleged the seller (and Vitale, a manager/owner) represented the car was sound and promised free repairs if needed.
- Piccolo filed a revised eight‑count complaint (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) — counts 1–4 against the business and 5–8 against Vitale — and paragraph 5 of count one alleged reliance on oral and written representations.
- Defendants moved to strike counts 4 and 8 (unjust enrichment), arguing paragraph 5 (incorporated into those counts) alleged an oral/written contract and thus precluded unjust enrichment as inconsistent pleading.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike counts 4 and 8 and later entered judgment for the defendants after a jury trial on the remaining counts.
- Piccolo appealed, arguing the court misread the complaint and misapplied the law on alternative pleading and unjust enrichment; the appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered denial of the motion to strike those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts for unjust enrichment were legally insufficient because they incorporated paragraph 5 (alleging reliance on oral and written representations) and therefore alleged an express contract | Piccolo: counts plead separate theories in separate counts; incorporation of factual allegations does not convert unjust enrichment into an express‑contract claim; alternative pleading is permitted | Defendants: incorporation of paragraph 5 (reliance on oral and written representations) alleges an oral/written contract and breach, so unjust enrichment is inconsistent and must be stricken | Reversed: court misconstrued paragraph 5; reliance allegations support fraud (oral/written misrepresentations), do not by themselves plead an express contract, and unjust enrichment counts were properly pleaded separately |
| Whether pleading facts that reference agreements/contracts bars restitutionary claims | Piccolo: factual pleadings may support alternative legal theories; plaintiff may allege contract and unjust enrichment in the alternative | Defendants: presence of alleged oral/written promise forecloses unjust enrichment | Held for Piccolo: Connecticut permits pleading alternative theories; lack of remedy under contract is a precondition to unjust enrichment at remedy stage, not for pleading; complaint did not allege breach in the unjust enrichment counts themselves |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 (1987) (permits alternative theories including restitution; factual pleadings can support unjust enrichment)
- United Coastal Indus., Inc. v. Clearheart Constr. Co., 71 Conn. App. 506 (2002) (unjust enrichment may apply even when a contract exists; availability depends on remedy under contract)
- Stein v. Horton, 99 Conn. App. 477 (2007) (recognizes "belt and suspenders" approach: breach and unjust enrichment can be pleaded alternatively)
- Leonard v. Comm’r of Revenue Servs., 264 Conn. 286 (2003) (elements of fraud include reliance)
- Kumah v. Brown, 127 Conn. App. 254 (2011) (standard of review for motions to strike; pleadings construed broadly in plaintiff's favor)