Yes it does.
Then there are an awful lot of silly judges in the Oregon appellate and supreme courts because there are a lot of case decisions about insurance proceeds that were ruled to be held in trust for other than the initial recipients of the proceeds:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&q=unjust+enrichment+insurance&btnG=
That's exactly the definition that applies to the OP's situation.
Let's talk dollars. For example, the parents' personal property loss is $50,000. The OP's loss is $5000. The policy covers the Named Insured's (parents) property and (as I quoted earlier) property of others, meaning property that does not belong to the Named Insureds.
Yes, they paid for the policy. But any payment received towards property they don't own creates a "constructive trust" requiring that payment to be conveyed to the owner of the property.
You list 5 elements necessary for a claim of unjust enrichment:
1.An enrichment;
Parents have been enriched by $5000 for property they don't own.
2.An impoverishment;
OP has been impoverished by $5000 that belongs to him.
3.A connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment;
$5000
4.Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment;
Paying for the policy is not justification.
5.An absence of a remedy provided by law.
Other sites list only 3: (1) that the defendant was enriched; (2) that the plaintiff suffered a corresponding deprivation; and (3) the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.
But I'll let that slide and address your number 5, which gives me pause while I consider whether there are any other remedies provided by law.
Breach of contract - No, none that I can divine.
Breach of bailment - No, already covered. The loss of the property was beyond the control of the parents.
Theft - ORS 164.0115 - A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person: (1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.
There are varying degrees of theft defined in the Oregon statutes but I seriously doubt that criminal prosecution is going to happen. However, theft is also a tort for which the OP can sue.
So it does appear that number 5 is not fulfilled if OP has a cause of action based on the tort of theft. But, on the chance that it's not going to be successful, he would be wise to sue for both theft and unjust enrichment and let the court decide.
Bottom line: There's no doubt that the parents are wrongfully keeping the money they got for his destroyed ski equipment and I think they will hand it over the moment they are served with a summons and complaint to small claims court.
