the fact that the insurance contract was silent on the question of reimbursement for unobligated payments, stating that “where ... the terms of the contract do not address the compensation owed to a plaintiff for a particular benefit conferred on the defendant, the plaintiff may obtain restitution if the defendant would be unjustly enriched by retaining that benefit.” Id. at 754. The Court further rejected the insured’s argument that Essex could not recoup the amount of the state court judgment because it paid the judgment voluntarily under a mistake of law, concluding instead that Essex had paid the judgment not due to a mistake of law but, rather, because there were factual questions that needed to be resolved before ascertaining whether it had a duty to indemnify RMJC. Id. at 754-55 (<HOLDING>). The Court further stated that “[pjolicy
holding that language of contract did not limit plaintiffs recovery to liquidated damages holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate recognizing that pennsylvania law disallows recovery of payments made under a mistake of law such as a misinterpretation of contract language but permits recovery of payments made without full knowledge of the facts holding that the irs has notice of plaintiffs alternate ground of recovery because it had considered and evaluated the applicability of the code provision under which the plaintiff sought recovery holding that a mistake of law is not a basis to rescind a contract