The plaintiff contractor performed emergency and restoration services on a property insured by the defendant insurer after a flood.
The property owner went bankrupt before paying the contractor for the restoration work.
The contractor sued the insurer for the unpaid amounts, alleging breach of contract, negligence, conversion, and unjust enrichment, arguing the insurer should have paid the contractor directly or issued co-payable cheques.
The insurer moved for summary judgment.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no contract existed between the insurer and the contractor, the insurer owed no duty of care to the contractor to ensure payment, the contractor had no ownership interest in the insurance proceeds to support a conversion claim, and the insurer was not unjustly enriched.
