A recently decided case out of Connecticut provides a useful examination of how antitrust standing issues may be analyzed in cases involving commercially-insured patients directly suing.
On June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. (2023) substantially broadened (at least temporarily) the bases for general personal.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Unjust enrichment offers an avenue for recovery in situations where no actual agreement exists between parties to a dispute. But this theory of quasi-contract does not apply to just any type of commercial arrangement.
In New York, although a written agreement may not be required to state a claim for unjust enrichment, there still must exist “a relationship or connection between the parties that is not too attenuated.”[1] In other words, an unjust enrichment claim cannot withstand a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff alleges a “sufficiently close relationship with the other party.”[2] The absence of allegations indicating such a relationship between the parties, “or at least an awareness by the defendant of the plaintiff’s existence,” can be fatal.[3]