Background
HE Electric alleged that it orally agreed with Miroslaw Szczerbowski, the ex-husband of Edyta Kiraga, to place Kiraga on its payroll so she could obtain health insurance through HE. In exchange, Szczerbowski allegedly promised to reimburse HE annually for Kiraga’s salary and health-insurance costs.
Kiraga performed no services for HE, but HE alleged that it paid her $42,162.96 in payroll payments from 2016 through 2019 and advanced about $50,000 for health-insurance premiums for Kiraga and her children. Szczerbowski died in 2019 without repaying HE. HE sued Kiraga for unjust enrichment and tortious interference; the circuit court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim with prejudice under section 2-615.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. HE did not allege facts showing that Kiraga’s retention of the salary and insurance benefits was unjust. The complaint did not allege that Kiraga induced HE to make the arrangement, agreed to repay HE if Szczerbowski did not, or failed to perform any duty to HE.
The court also held that unjust enrichment was unavailable because the alleged express oral agreement between HE and Szczerbowski governed the same subject matter. A party disappointed by its contracting counterparty’s failure to pay generally cannot seek compensation from a third-party beneficiary who made no promise to pay. As an alternative ground, the court concluded the arrangement likely constituted insurance or common-law fraud because Kiraga was put on payroll solely to obtain benefits despite not being an actual employee.
Key Takeaways
- Receiving a benefit does not alone establish unjust enrichment; the complaint must allege why retaining it is inequitable.
- An express contract governing the dispute bars an unjust-enrichment claim, including against a third-party beneficiary absent a payment obligation.
- A court will not use restitution to enforce rights arising from an illegal agreement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a plaintiff cannot recast a failed contractual repayment arrangement as an unjust-enrichment claim against a noncontracting beneficiary. The alleged beneficiary’s lack of a promise or other duty to the plaintiff was central to the dismissal.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except as Rule 23(e)(1) permits.