Opinion ID: 2322994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Grounds for Equitable Relief

Text: Crosse also contends that, even if BCBSD owes no fiduciary duties to him and the other plan participants, the complaint sets forth other equitable claims that permit the Court of Chancery to hear the case. BCBSD argues that no ground for equitable relief exists. We review de novo the finding of the Court of Chancery that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Crosse's claims. Crosse first argues that his unjust enrichment claim permits the Court of Chancery to retain jurisdiction in this case despite the statute that precludes Chancery jurisdiction in certain cases. [9] This claim, however, is an off-the-contract theory of recovery that accompanies the breach of contract allegations. These off-the-contract theories of recovery are legal, not equitable claims. [10] The Superior Court typically has jurisdiction to award this form of relief when it cannot hold the parties to a formal agreement but determines that the aggrieved party is entitled to relief for a benefit conferred on the other party. Crosse's argument is tantamount to an assertion that the Superior Court would not be permitted to hear any valid contract action that has an unjust enrichment claim as an alternative theory for recovery. Crosse also asserts a claim for relief under the Consumer Fraud Act. [11] Crosse has not alleged facts sufficient to invoke injunctive relief, nor has he argued that damages cannot remedy his alleged losses or those of the class. As this Court has noted, damages are the traditional remedy for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. [12] Crosse's claim based on the provisions of the Act prohibiting deceptive trade practices is inapplicable here. Crosse is a consumer, not a competitor of BCBSD. As such, he does not have a business interest in the alleged unlawful conduct and, therefore, does not have standing to bring a deceptive trade practice claim. [13] Crosse also argues that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over this case because he asks that court to pierce the corporate veil and hold the directors of BCBSD directly liable for the alleged mismanagement. To state a veil-piercing claim, the plaintiff must plead facts supporting an inference that the corporation, through its alter-ego, has created a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors. [14] Crosse has failed to allege any facts to support such an inference. Crosse also contends that BCBSD has breached its non-profit status by accumulating a surplus of over $50 million. A veil-piercing claim is usually invoked when the shell corporate entity is insolvent and the plaintiff wishes to reach the personal assets of the corporation's stockholders or alter egos. That contention does not apply in this case.