Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services, Ltd.

Coastal Refining and Marketing (Coastal) (defendant) contracted with Certified Supply Corporation and Chief Supply Corporation (collectively, the prime contractors) (defendants) for the removal of hazardous waste from its property. The prime contractors entered into a subcontract with Haz-Mat Response, Inc. (Haz-Mat) (plaintiff) to perform certain components of the waste-removal work. Haz-Mat did not dispose of the waste, which was required by the original contract between Coastal and the prime contractors. Coastal then hired other contractors to complete the work. Coastal did not pay the prime contractors, who in turn did not pay Haz-Mat. Haz-Mat filed a mechanic’s lien and filed suit against both the prime contractors and Coastal, alleging breach of contract and seeking foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien. Alternatively, Haz-Mat sought judgment based on quantum meruit/unjust enrichment against Coastal. Coastal filed for summary judgment on the ground that a mechanic’s lien could not be filed for hazardous-waste removal, because hazardous-waste removal was not an improvement to real property. Coastal also alleged that recovery could not be granted for unjust enrichment in a matter in which there was no privity of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Coastal on both issues. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment with regard to the mechanic’s lien and reversed the judgment with regard to the unjust-enrichment claim, finding it a viable cause of action notwithstanding the lack of privity.