Board of Governors of the Colorado State University v. Alderman.

2025 CO 9. No. 23SC565. Unjust Enrichment— Effect of Express Contract—Statutory or Legislative Law.

February 24, 2025

After Colorado State University (CSU) temporarily transitioned to online classes in the Spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Alderman and another student filed putative class action lawsuits seeking pro-rata refunds of the amounts they and similarly situated students paid in tuition and student fees for the six-week period during which campus was closed. The students asserted two claims for breach of contract and two claims, in the alternative, for the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment.

The district court dismissed the students’ breach of contract claims, finding that CSU had statutory authority under CRS § 23-30-111 to temporarily suspend operations in the event of “the prevalence of fatal diseases, or other unforeseen calamity” such as COVID-19. The district court later dismissed the unjust enrichment claims, finding that the students’ equitable claims and the legally enforceable contract between CSU and the students covered the same subject matter—the provision of educational services. A split division of the court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision dismissing the unjust enrichment claims.

The supreme court granted certiorari to determine whether an unjust enrichment claim can be properly asserted when it mirrors a contract that (1) covers the same subject matter and (2) remains legally enforceable. The court held that claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment are mutually exclusive under these circumstances. Consequently, the court reversed that portion of the division’s judgment reinstating the unjust enrichment claims and remanded the case with directions to reinstate the district court’s judgment in favor of CSU.