Unjust Enrichment Promissory Estoppel Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation
Progenyhealth, Inc. v. Caresource Management Group, Co., PICS Case No. 17-1120 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2017) Joyner, J. (13 pages).
Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims alleging unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation after defendant used plaintiff's name and reputation with plaintiff's consent to acquire new contracts but did not retain plaintiff as a subcontractor under those contracts because plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an express representation, promise or "contract-like promise" to support its claims. Motion to dismiss granted.
Plaintiff sued for unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation after defendant relied on plaintiff's success and reputation to win contracts but then did not retain plaintiff to provide services. Defendant managed health care provider contracted with plaintiff to provide neonatal medical and case management services pursuant to a contract with the state of Ohio. Defendant received requests for proposals from Georgia and Indiana and asked plaintiff to submit letters of intent so that defendant could use plaintiff's information in responding to the RFPS. Defendants were awarded the Georgia and Indiana contracts but did not subcontract with plaintiff in either state. Plaintiff contended that defendant did not compensate it for the use of its name, made promises regarding future dealings under the Georgia and Indiana contracts and that those promises induced it to hire and train additional personnel.
The court found that a plaintiff could not expect to be compensated for a benefit conferred in the pursuit of a contract. Plaintiff, in the hope of being retained under the Indiana or Georgia contracts, allowed defendant to use its name. While defendant may have been enriched, the benefit received was not unjust, plaintiff showed no evidence that defendant promised to compensate plaintiff for the use of its name and reputation and plaintiff failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff asserted numerous email exchanges, draft agreements and 104 meetings between plaintiff and defendant showed defendant made representations and promises upon which plaintiff detrimentally relied when it hired and trained additional personnel to perform under the expected Georgia and Indiana contracts. The court found that plaintiff did not establish a promissory estoppel claim because even if defendant made the statements attributed to it, assurances that a contract would be executed at some point in the future were not the type of express promise that supported a promissory estoppel claim. Plaintiff failed to show an express or "contract-like promise" made by defendant. Additionally, plaintiff also failed to allege the existence of an express representation that it could justifiably have relied on to support the negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims.