Opinion ID: 2570481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion and Unjust Enrichment

Text: NEA-T also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the alleged tort claims required an interpretation of the PA. The trial court held: Plaintiffs' tort actions against the District also depend on the interpretation of the PA. Whether the District breached its fiduciary duty to pay out the funds to plan participants and whether the District has unlawfully converted the funds or been unjustly enriched by the funds, depends on whether the insurance plan fringe benefit is to be construed as part of a professional employee's total salary or whether only the difference between the cost of a single low-option health insurance plan and $166.68 is considered part of an employee's compensation. Without this interpretation through arbitration, the Court cannot decide whether the employer District has held any funds unlawfully. Therefore, the proper forum for resolution of Plaintiffs' tort claims was arbitration and thus, since Plaintiffs have failed to timely move for arbitration, the Court holds their tort claims must also be dismissed. The District contends that NEA-T has no standing to bring tort claims. We need not address the District's standing argument. Under the facts here, we agree with the trial court's reasoning.