28. "[O]nly the owner of a life insurance policy may change the beneficiary." Adams v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 558 S.E.2d 504, 508 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002); accord Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) ("[A]ny changes made to an insurance policy affecting the beneficiary designation . . . must be made by the policy owner. If not, the changes are a legal nullity and of no force and effect . . . .").
In order to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must establish: "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Lake Toxaway Cmty. Ass'n v. RYF Enters., LLC, 742 S.E.2d 555, 561 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. App. Ct. 2011); JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Browning, 750 S.E.2d 555, 559 (N.C. App. Ct. 2013). Within the realm of unjust enrichment, Plaintiff also brings an action for money had and received.
A claim of unjust enrichment under North Carolina law requires a plaintiff to establish that "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co. , 211 N.C.App. 252, 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). Similar to the claim of unjust enrichment under Texas law, a claim of unjust enrichment under North Carolina law can also be established by a single act of copyright infringement.
"Under a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish certain essential elements, (1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011); see also Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., 2015 WL 2412467, at *15 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2015); Preservation Professional Services, LLC v. M2 Pictures, LLC, 2015 WL 3659506, at *6 (W.D.N.C. May 5, 2015); Mountain Land Properties, Inc. v. Lovell, 46 F.Supp.3d 609, 629 (W.D.N.C. 2014); Scherer v. Steel Creek Property Owners Ass'n, 2014 WL 2196065, at *18 (W.D.N.C. May 27, 2014); Lawhead v. PNC Bank, 2014 WL 1266995, at *7 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2014). Additionally, "whether [Defendant] was entitled to receive the benefit...is the determinative issue" in an unjust enrichment case.
“The test is not whether the defendant acquired the money honestly and in good faith, but rather, has he the right to retain it.”Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 259, 712 S.E.2d 670, 676 (2011) (quoting Allgood v. Wilmington Sav. & Trust Co., 242 N.C. 506, 512, 88 S.E.2d 825, 829 (1955) ).Ridley v. Jim Walter Corp., 272 N.C. 673, 677, 158 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1968).
Under North Carolina law, the party claiming unjust enrichment must sufficiently allege that (1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the other party, (2) that party consciously accepted the benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). "A claim of unjust enrichment is an alternative to a claim based on breach of contract whereby, upon the absence of an actual agreement between the parties, the court implies that a 'quasi-contract' existed and permits a plaintiff to bring an action in restitution to recover the amount of the benefit conferred on the defendant."
"However, when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the prevailing party, and when the question has become one exclusively of law such that the jury has no function to serve, a motion for JNOV may be properly granted." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 266–67, 712 S.E.2d 670, 681 (2011) (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). It is well settled that "no negligence claim exists where all rights and remedies have been set forth in [a] contractual relationship."
]’ N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A–1, Rule 50(b)(1) [ (2012) ]. A motion for [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] provides the trial court with an opportunity to reconsider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence after the jury has returned a verdict and permits the court to enter judgment ‘in accordance with the movant's earlier motion for a directed verdict and notwithstanding the contrary verdict actually returned by the jury.’ “ Primerica Life v. James Massengill & Sons, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 712 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2011) (quoting Ace, Inc. v. Maynard, 108 N.C.App. 241, 245, 423 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), disc. review denied,333 N.C. 574, 429 S.E.2d 567 (1993)). The propriety of granting [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is determined by the same considerations as that of the movant's prior motion for directed verdict—whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant, is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the non-moving party.
To establish unjust enrichment, a party must show "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (2011) (citing Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 184 N.C.App. 688, 647 S.E.2d 111, 116 (2007)). And quantum meruit "is a measure of recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered in order to prevent unjust enrichment."
"An action for money had and received may be maintained as a general rule whenever the defendant has money in his hands which belongs to the plaintiff, and which in equity and good conscience he ought to pay to the plaintiff." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 676 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). To prove a claim of unjust enrichment, UNC was required to establish "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on [Maisha], (2) [Maisha] consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously."