Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a claim for unjust enrichment is not barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The Court ruled that unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action seeking restitution, not compensatory damages for a tort or breach of contract. Therefore, the GTLA, which bars tort liability for civil wrongs seeking compensatory damages, does not apply to unjust enrichment claims. The decision clarifies the definition of "tort liability" under *In re Bradley Estate*.
Holdings
- Unjust enrichment is neither a tort nor a contract but an independent cause of action, and its remedy is restitution, not compensatory damages. Therefore, the GTLA does not bar an unjust enrichment claim.
Questions Presented
- Whether a claim for unjust enrichment is barred by the governmental tort liability act (GTLA).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich. 367 (2013)
- Ray v. Swager, 501 Mich. 52 (2017)
- People v. Bruner, 501 Mich. 220 (2018)
- McCreary v. Shields, 333 Mich. 290 (1952)
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co v. East China Twp Sch, 443 Mich. 176 (1993)
- State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
- Great-West Life & Annuity Ins Co v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…