F.Supp.2d at 1162-63 (discussing Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sullivan Props., Inc. ("Scottsdale I ”), Civ. No. 04-00550 HG-BMK, 2006 WL 505170, at *1 (D.Haw. Feb. 28, 2006)). 22 . As a general matter, the Court notes that Hawai'i construes insurance policies liberally and in favor of the insured. In Guajardo v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., 118 Hawai'i 196, 187 P.3d 580 (2008), the Hawai’i Supreme Court explained: [B]ecause insurance policies are contracts of adhesion and are premised on standard forms prepared by the insurer’s attorneys, we have long subscribed to the principle that they must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and any ambiguities must be resolved against the insurer. Put another way, the rule is that policies are to be construed in accord with th 94, 1008-09 (App.2007) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court finds that
holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that a cause of action for unjust enrichment is an action at law where damages are entirely quantifiable by reference to specific numbers set forth in a contract and susceptible of proof by reference to that contract holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment holding that although money had and received and unjust enrichment were pled as separate causes of action they are really the same cause of action