Karden Constr. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico
Decision Date | 13 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 286 MDA 2018,286 MDA 2018 |
Parties | KARDEN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., Appellant v. Brian D'AMICO |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Osmer S. Deming, Reading, for appellant.
Deborah A. Sottosanti, Reading, for appellee.
Appellant Karden Construction Services, Inc. appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Appellee Brian D'Amico following a new trial on damages from Appellant's claim of unjust enrichment. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that Appellant failed to prove damages. We affirm.
This Court previously summarized the background of this appeal as follows:
Karden Const. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico , 1351 MDA 2015 at 1-2, 2016 WL 3034741 (Pa. Super. Filed May 25, 2016) (unpublished mem.) (citation omitted).
Following a non-jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Appellee on all counts and denied Appellant's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id. at 4. On appeal, a prior panel of this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded this matter. Id. at 10.
Of relevance to this appeal, the prior panel concluded that Appellee was unjustly enriched by Appellant's construction services. Id. at 9-10. As to the provision of construction services, the prior panel focused on Mr. Link's testimony that Appellant provided Appellee with the following construction services:
Frequently, [Appellee] would ask me questions about designs that were done, whether they were appropriate or not, whether there was alternatives to it. Early—when—because it's problems with the builder. We discussed going out and getting additional estimates so that we had support for damages that were going to go into the—into the legal process. And so a lot of activity associated with construction management was involved.
Id. at 9 (record citation omitted). Additionally, the prior panel emphasized Mr. Link's testimony that once Appellee filed a complaint, he continued to communicate with Appellee "both from the standpoint—a local standpoint, dispute resolution standpoint, and also standpoint of construction management." Id. at 10 (record citation omitted).
The prior panel concluded that Appellant was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on its claim for unjust enrichment for Appellant's "expertise in managing the construction of [Appellee]'s dwelling."1 Id. at 10. The panel remanded for a determination of the reasonable value of the construction management services, as opposed to the litigation services, Appellant provided to Appellee. Id. at 10. Specifically, the panel concluded:
Given the uncontradicted evidence, [Appellee] clearly appreciated, accepted and retained the benefit of [Appellant]'s expertise in managing the construction of [Appellee]'s dwelling. Differently put, [Appellee] unjustly enriched himself from the provision of construction management services. As a result, we remand this matter to the trial court to determine the reasonable value of [Appellant]'s construction management services. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment to the extent it held that no agreement existed between the parties and [Appellee] did not benefit from the litigation support services. We, however, reverse the trial court's judgment to the extent it held that [Appellee] was not unjustly enriched from the provision of construction management services and remand this matter for determination of the reasonable value of such services.
Id. at 10. The prior panel further suggested that the parties and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Rutter's Inc. Data Sec. Breach Litig.
...benefit under circumstances in which it would be inequitable to do so without paying for the benefit. Karden Constr. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico , 219 A.3d 619, 628 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).Plaintiffs allege that they (and the putative class members) "conferred a material benefit upon Rutter's in ......
-
Nigro v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
...the benefit under circumstances in which it would be inequitable to do so withoutpaying for the benefit. Karden Constr. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico, 219 A.3d 619, 628 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). Here, PHEAA argues that the amended complaint fails to state an unjust enrichment claim upon which relief......
-
Banks v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
...benefit under circumstances in which it would be inequitable to do so without paying for the benefit. Karden Constr. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico , 219 A.3d 619, 628 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). A plaintiff cannot recover for unjust enrichment where the parties’ relationship is governed by a written c......
-
Heritage Valley Health Sys., Inc. v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc.
...the benefit under circumstances in which it would be inequitable to do so without paying for the benefit. Karden Constr. Servs., Inc. v. D'Amico , 219 A.3d 619, 628 (Pa. Super. 2019). In Pennsylvania, "the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties i......