¶17 True, we require a "clear expression" of legislative intent to establish a private right of action. City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Dep't v. Denver Health &Hosp. Auth., 2017 CO 97, ¶ 22, 403 P.3d 609, 614 (quoting State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220, 227 (Colo. 1992)).

Arvada Police Dep't v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 2017 CO 97, ¶ 37, 403 P.3d 609, 616. While equity rulings generally lie within the discretion of the trial court, appellate courts review de novo whether the trial court correctly understood the appropriate test for unjust enrichment.

¶65 Tellingly, nearly all of the cases in which we have held that a claim did not and could not "lie in tort" for purposes of the CGIA involved contractual claims. See City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Dep't v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. , 2017 CO 97, ¶¶ 41–42, 403 P.3d 609, 617 (unjust enrichment arising out of a contract dispute); Denny Constr., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver ex rel. Bd. of Water Comm'rs , 199 P.3d 742, 750 (Colo. 2009) (lost profit damages in a breach of contract claim); Berg v. State Bd. of Agric. , 919 P.2d 254, 259 (Colo. 1996) (promissory estoppel); Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. DeLozier , 917 P.2d 714, 717 (Colo. 1996) (promissory estoppel); Julesburg Sch. Dist. No. RE-1 v. Ebke , 193 Colo. 40, 562 P.2d 419, 421 (1977) (breach of contractual duty).

"Once the questions of fact are resolved, we review questions of governmental immunity de novo," Dennis, ¶ 12, 418 P.3d at 494, including "whether the CGIA bars a particular claim," City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Dep’t v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 2017 CO 97, ¶ 14, 403 P.3d 609, 612. 2. The Association’s Claims Against the City

In subsequent opinions, the supreme court has expressed "reluctance" to find implied private rights of action in the face of legislative silence. City of Arvada ex rel.Arvada Police Dep’t v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 2017 CO 97, ¶ 21, 403 P.3d 609. And the court has explained, somewhat paradoxically, that an implied private right of action requires a " ‘clear expression’ of legislative intent" to imply one.

However, we must look to the injury underlying the statutory claims. See Lyons , ¶¶ 13, 15 ; see also City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Dep't v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. , 2017 CO 97, ¶ 39, 403 P.3d 609 ("The CGIA does not, however, grant immunity to public entities for non-tort claims, including claims based on ‘contractual relations or a distinctly non-tortious statutorily-imposed duty.’ " (quoting Brown Grp. , 182 P.3d at 691 )) (emphasis added).