actions or prosecuting actions, where the litigation is not the result of his own fault.” Scott on Trusts § 244, at 323-24 (4th ed.1988). The Seventh Circuit has echoed this same conclusion as well. See Hamilton v. Nielsen, 678 F.2d 709, 713-14 (7th Cir.1982). Continental’s argument is not well-taken, and Count I of RAM’s counterclaim will not be dismissed. 1 . The Commissioner and Continental contend that an action for unjust enrichment also must contain an allegation of wrongful conduct by a defendant. Although courts in Illinois have seemed to reach conflicting conclusions on this issue, compare Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund v. Municipal Employees', Officers’, and Officials’ Annuity and Benefit Fund, 219 Ill.App.3d 707, 712, 579 N.E.2d 1003, 1007, 162 Ill.Dec. 189, 193 (1991) (<HOLDING>) with Charles Hester Enters. v. Illinois
holding that a cause of action based on unjust enrichment does not require fault or illegality on the part of the defendant holding that cause of action for unjust enrichment accrues upon payment of sum giving rise to duty of restitution 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 unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment