Court Opinion

ID: 9729115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:26:39.159219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.460260
License: Public Domain

JANSEN, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately because I would not decide this appeal on the basis of quantum meruit and because I dissent insofar as the majority announces a new rule of law.
The trial court properly determined that defendants breached the parties’ express contract. I would affirm the finding of liability on this ground. Accordingly, I would not reach the issue whether recovery was alternatively justified under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit. Such a discussion of quantum meruit is *25irrelevant and merely cumulative in light of the court’s proper finding of a breach of contract.
I also note that the express language of the contract itself explicitly contemplated quantum-meruit-like recovery. In other words, the contract was not a traditional contingent-fee contract. It provided that “[i]f there is a resolution of the litigation which involves something other than a cash payment, fair value will be given for the benefit based on an agreement to be reached between you and the Dykema firm.” This clause, rather than providing for a traditional contingent fee, essentially provided for quantum-meruit-like contract damages in the event that the litigation was resolved through a noncash settlement.
This is precisely the manner in which the litigation betweens defendants and BCBSM was resolved here— not by way of a cash payment, but by way of a confidential settlement agreement and a voluntary dismissal of the claims and counterclaims. Therefore, pursuant to the parties’ express agreement, quantum-meruit-like recovery was the appropriate measure of contract damages at law, irrespective of the applicability of the equitable remedy of quasi-contract or quantum meruit in this matter.
Inasmuch as the majority announces a new rule of law regarding the applicability of quantum meruit in the context of legal-fee recovery, I respectfully dissent. I would not announce any new rule of law in this regard.
I would not decide this appeal on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit. Nor would I announce a new rule of law concerning the applicability of quantum meruit in the context of legal-fee recovery. Otherwise, I concur in the result reached by the majority.