it does not he in tort for purposes of the CGIA. It is a matter of first impression for this court as to whether a claim for unjust enrichment is a claim that lies or could lie in tort for the purposes of the CGIA. Unjust enrichment is a form of quasi-contract or contract implied in law that does not depend in any way upon a promise or privity between the parties. DCB Constr. Co., Inc. v. Cent. City Dev. Co., 965 P.2d 115, 119 (Colo.1998). The test for recovery under an unjust enrichment theory requires a showing that (1) at plaintiffs expense (2) defendant received a benefit (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for defendant to retain the benefit without paying. Id. at 119-20. The scope of the remedy is broad, cutting across 230 Ill.Dec. 55, 692 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Hydro Conduit Corp. v. Kemble, 110 N.M. 173,
holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions