Artisan Builders, Inc. v. Jang, S. ( 2022 )

J-A15024-21
2022 PA Super 36ARTISAN BUILDERS, INC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
SO YOUNG JANG : No. 47 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered November 17, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 2016-07178-ML
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
CONCURRING OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2022
I join the Majority in full. My esteemed colleague has clarified terms
that have oft been used interchangeably and has cogently explained the
meaningful differences between claims for quantum meruit and unjust
enrichment.
I write separately to note that, while the prior decisions cited by the
Majority did at times conflate the two phrases in their discussions,1 none
conflated the appropriate measure of damages in instances where the parties
had a contractual relationship but a contract that was not legally enforceable.
Regardless of the terminology utilized, this Court and our Supreme Court
indicated that, when a benefit was conferred upon a party at its request, the
____________________________________________
1 See Majority Opinion at 7 n.4.
J-A15024-21
damages available in the absence of contract enforcement are the reasonable
value of the services provided, not the value of the benefit retained. See Am.
& Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526, 545 (Pa. 2010)
(referencing both quantum meruit and unjust enrichment in considering
reasonable legal costs paid by insurer, rather than benefit that the insured
retained from the defense, as alleged damages in deciding whether the
insured was “unjustly enriched” by the insurer’s payment of defense costs
after it was determined that the parties’ contract did not require the insurer
to defend the claim at issue); Ne. Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy
Quigley Co., Inc., 933 A.2d 664, 669 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating that unjust
enrichment is synonymous with quantum meruit and discussing a claim for
payment by subcontractor against contractor as one of “unjust enrichment,”
but holding that damages were appropriately established by invoices detailing
the value of the services rendered).
Accordingly, our decision today does not break new substantive ground.
Rather, we seek to re-instill precision into the lexicon in applying well-
established legal principles. It is with the understanding that we do not run
afoul of our duty to follow precedent that I join the Majority Opinion.
Judge Stabile joins this Concurring Opinion.
Judge Musmanno did not participate in the consideration or decision of
this Concurring Opinion.
-2-