Opinion ID: 2973259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Quasi-Contract Claim

Text: Bergman cannot make out the elements of a quasi-contract claim even though the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies in the employment context. McCarthy v. Louisville Cartage Co., 796 S.W.2d 10, 12 (Ky. Ct. App. 1990). Promissory estoppel requires: “(1) a promise; (2) which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promissee; (3) which does induce such action or forbearance; and (4) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.” See Res-Care, Inc. v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (W.D. Ky. 2001) (citing Meade Const. Co. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec., 579 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Ky. 1979)). The only statement made on behalf of BHS that could be construed as a promise was Hayes’s indication that Bergman could work as a “breaker.” Even if this statement was a promise, Bergman cannot establish the other elements of promissory estoppel. She did not act in reliance on Hayes’s “promise” that she could be a “breaker” — she would have had the surgery necessary to -12- save her pregnancy regardless. In fact, she had scheduled the surgery before Hayes’s alleged “promise.” Therefore, as a matter of law, Bergman’s quasi-contract claim fails.