Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Proving Quantum Meruit/Fair and Reasonable Value

In a recent case in a New York appeals court, the plaintiff sued the defendants to recover money/payment for services he allegedly provided and for a judgment declaring that he was a member of a limited liability company (an LLC). It's not clear from the decision what these services were.

The case went through discovery (the exchange of information, documents, depositions, etc.) and all the way through a trial. There was a bench trial (a trial by a judge, no jury); the judge found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed. 

First, the appeals court said the plaintiff had failed to show any evidence at trial that he was a member of the LLC--no operating agreement for the LLC, no list of members of the LLC, etc. 

The appeals court also said that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim for quantum meruit. Quantum meruit is called a "quasi contract" theory of recovery, meaning there was no written contract, but you provided services and expected payment as if there were a contract. The appeals court set out the elements of a quantum meruit claim:  (1) the performance of services in good faith; (2) the acceptance of the services by the other party; (3) an expectation of compensation for the services; and (4) proof of the reasonable value of the services.

The appeals court said:
The record is devoid of evidence which would establish the reasonable value of the services the plaintiff provided to the defendants. The plaintiff failed to testify as to the number of hours he expended, and no value was placed on his services on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis.
Ouch. So basically the plaintiff had no evidence of the value of his services or even how many hours he supposedly spent in rendering the services. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more