Contract – Summary judgment was wrongly granted on quantum meruit claim

Where an automobile repair shop sued to recover storage fees for a vehicle that was left in its parking lot for nearly a year, and there were several material facts in dispute, the circuit court erred when it granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Background

Joe Miller, owner of Village Body & Paint Shop, sued Progressive Gulf Insurance Company to recover storage fees for a vehicle that was left in the parking lot of Miller’s small automobile repair business for nearly a year. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Progressive.

Analysis

Miller argues that the court erred when it determined, as a threshold issue, that the allegations of his complaint did not assert a claim for quantum meruit, but a claim for unjust enrichment. This court agrees.

The complaint alleges that Bearov dropped her car off at Miller’s shop for a repair estimate. Progressive then bought the car from Bearov after declaring it a total loss and contacted Miller to obtain the cost for the storage of Bearov’s car. After Miller provided the information, Progressive told Miller three times that they would remove the car but never did so.

A fair inference is that Progressive understood that storage fees were part of the services Miller was providing until it could remove the vehicle. Thus, the complaint, read in the light most favorable to Miller, alleges facts sufficient to support recovery under a theory of quantum meruit and to raise a material question of fact not amenable to resolution by summary judgment.

There are numerous disputed facts about whether these conversations occurred, what the details were that would impact whether there was in fact an implied contract regarding the storage fees and at what point any contract ended. Thus, the circuit court should have denied the motion for summary judgment.

Damages

Miller further argues that, if he must recover under an unjust enrichment theory, he should not be limited to the vehicle’s salvage value. The court agrees. It can be reasonably inferred from the facts pleaded that Progressive received a benefit by having Miller store the vehicle for more than two months while it decided what ultimately to do with the vehicle. As such, the proper measure of damages would be the benefit conferred on the defendant, which is the reasonable value of storing the car.

Code § 46.2-644.01

To partially protect keepers of vehicles from the risk of nonpayment, Code § 46.2-644.01 creates a lien upon that vehicle in the amount of the services rendered but not to exceed the value of the vehicle. Progressive argues that this statute limits Miller’s recovery under an unjust enrichment theory to the vehicle’s value. But Code § 46.2-644.01 merely limits the recovery a vehicle keeper may obtain if they use the enforcement mechanism of exercising their right to sell the vehicle under Code § 46.2-644.03, and it does not apply to limit damages in a civil action.

Vacated and remanded.

Miller v. Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, Case No. 0535-25-4, June 2, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Lorish). From the Circuit Court of Fauquier County (Fleming Jr.). Rachel L. Yates (Yates Appellate Law, on briefs), for appellant. Wm. Tyler Shands (Kerrigan O’Malley; Carter & Shands, PC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-229. 13 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-229