D. Defenses
Actions in quantum meruit are based on the absence of a contract.22 A party may not disavow a binding contract and pursue quantum meruit.23 Relief under the theory is therefore not available if an action is based on the existence of a contract.24 However, in Beverly v. Grand Strand Reg'l Med. Ctr., LLC,25 a health care provider contracted with a health insurer to become a "preferred provider." It promised to bill the insurer directly for certain medical services delivered to members and to accept a discounted reimbursement rate from those services. A member was billed by the provider for covered services. It declined to bill her at the contracted discounted rate and sent her a bill in violation of its contract with the insurer. Despite the contract, the Court of Appeal held it was error for the lower court to dismiss the member's quantum meruit claim.
South Carolina courts appear to treat breach of contract and quantum meruit claims as alternative, rather than inconsistent, remedies. The Court of Appeals has made this assertion,26 and based it on language in Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich.27 The plaintiff in Earthscapes was a landscaping company that provided services to the defendant. When the defendant refused to pay, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic's lien, alleging breach of contract and in the alternative, seeking judgment under quantum meruit. The parties had an oral agreement for the work.28 The trial court found there was a contract between the parties, but noted that absent its ruling on the mechanic's lien, it would have found against the defendant for the same amount of money under the quantum meruit claim. The Supreme Court said it was unnecessary to determine whether there was an express contract or the mechanic's lien statutes applied because it would affirm on the quantum meruit claim. The court added in a footnote that although "... the circuit court did find there was a contract between the two parties ... it never awarded damages because of a breach of that contract. Rather, the circuit court chose the theory of quantum meruit as an alternate remedy."29 The Court of Appeals quoted that language in support of its conclusion that breach of contract and quantum meruit claims can be alternative remedies. It could, however, be argued that since the Supreme Court declined to determine whether there was an express contract, the footnote language is mere dicta. Where some terms of a contract are agreed upon and a complete contract does not exist, an action in quantum meruit may be maintained and the terms of the contract so far as they were agreed upon may properly be alleged.30 A plaintiff may be able to recover where the defendant denies the very existence of the agreement at issue and the plaintiff amends the complaint to assert an alternative cause of action in quantum meruit.31 And, where a contract cannot be enforced because of the Statute of Frauds and has been repudiated by the defendant, the plaintiff may recover under quantum meruit.32
As a general rule equitable relief is available when there is no adequate remedy at law. A statute may provide that adequate legal remedy and thus serve to prevent an equitable one.33
Where the plaintiffs claimed they conferred a benefit on the defendant company by bringing and prosecuting the action on its behalf and could, therefore, recover their litigation expenses under quantum meruit the court found that no valid claim for recovery had been stated since if the plaintiffs were successful, ERISA provided the court could award reasonable attorney's fee and costs of the action. The federal law preempted the claim for quantum meruit recovery.34
...
