Insurance Coverage / Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Insurer Can Proceed

Insurance Coverage: Supreme Court finds unjust enrichment claim asserted against plaintiff’s insurer ripe for adjudication under the make whole doctrine:

The principal issue before the Connecticut Supreme Court is whether the trial court properly dismissed as unripe the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim asserted against his automobile insurance company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The plaintiff originally brought a claim for negligence against the defendant-tortfeasor arising from a motor vehicle collision. Thereafter, the plaintiff asserted an additional claim against Nationwide based in unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges that he conferred a benefit on Nationwide by paying monthly premiums with the expectation that Nationwide would not pursue subrogation unless and until the plaintiff had been made whole, as required under the make whole doctrine adopted in Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. TD Banknorth Ins. Agency, Inc., 309 Conn. 449, 72 A.3d 36 (2013). On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court agreed with the lower court and held that the plaintiff’s claim was unripe under the make whole doctrine unless and until the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant-tortfeasor. The Supreme Court disagrees. Upon reviewing the applicable law, the Supreme Court holds that the viability of the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim depends on the proper application of the make whole doctrine under the present circumstances. In the plaintiff’s complaint, he invokes the make whole doctrine and alleges that said doctrine was violated when the defendant-tortfeasor’s insurance company conveyed a $25,000.00 benefit to Nationwide and Nationwide accepted that benefit before it determined whether the plaintiff, its insured, had been fully compensated. The Supreme Court further finds that Nationwide’s enforcement of its subrogation rights deprived the plaintiff of access to the defendant-tortfeasor’s liability coverage and improperly transferred the risk of not being made whole from Nationwide to the plaintiff himself. In holding that the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is ripe for adjudication, the Supreme Court concludes that “allowing an insurer’s subrogation claim to deplete a tortfeasor’s available liability coverage and then requiring an injured insured to pursue the tortfeasor until he has established the tortfeasor’s insolvency is the type of inequitable result that the make whole doctrine is intended to prevent.” Therefore, the Supreme Court reverses the Appellate Court’s judgment and directs it to reverse the trial court’s partial judgment of dismissal. Orlando v. Liburd, 353 Conn. 845, 348 A.3d 430 (2026).