The Court of Appeals recently held that a real estate firm’s relationship with a competitor in the transaction at issue was not sufficient to support an unjust enrichment claim. Whether that result was consistent with the court’s precedent or whether the decision imposed a heightened standard to sustain such a claim was disputed between the majority and dissent.
In an insurance dispute arising out of a horrible crane collapse, the court held that if misrepresentations by the primary insured rendered the liability policy void such that the primary insured was not entitled to coverage, the additional insureds similarly would not be entitled to coverage.
