Opinion ID: 3060770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unjust Enrichment and Termination Agreement

Text: Next, White Construction raises the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. White Construction asserts it signed the Termination Agreement only because Martin Marietta promised to purchase its assets for $15.5 million at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. White Construction argues because it relinquished its rights, Martin Marietta was able to reap the benefits of mining limerock at the quarry. Therefore, it would be inequitable for Martin Marietta to retain these proceeds. In short, White Construction asserts there remains a genuine issue of material fact on its unjust enrichment claim. This argument is without merit. “In Florida, the essential elements of a claim for unjust enrichment are: (1) a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and (3) the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that would make it inequitable for him to retain it 6 without paying the value thereof.’” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotations and alteration omitted). However, the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment is not available “to prove entitlement to relief if an express contract exists.” Ocean Commc’ns , Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.” Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). With respect to the purchase of White Construction’s assets, we agree with the district court’s conclusion the MSA is an express contract concerning the same subject matter. Rather than purchasing the assets for $15.5 million, the MSA shows Martin Marietta was given the option to purchase White Construction’s assets at fair market value. Because the MSA is proof of an express agreement between the parties as to the purchase of White Construction’s assets, this would defeat rather than sustain a cause of action of unjust enrichment, and we will not imply a contract where a valid one exists. Furthermore, the record indicates White Construction received the compensation it bargained for under the terms of the MSA. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying White Construction’s unjust enrichment claim. 7