The existence of insurance coverage is determined from the plain meaning of the language in the policy ( see, Matter of All-state Ins. Co. [Generett], 134 A.D.2d 196, 197). An insurer seeking to invoke an exclusion under its policy must establish that the exclusion applies in the particular case, is expressed in clear and unmistakable language and is subject to no other reasonable interpretation. ( Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640, 652.) Any ambiguity in an exclusion must be resolved against the insurer and in favor of coverage ( Consolidated Edison Co. v Hartford Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 83, 84).
The subject policy expressly includes coverage for recovery against the insured on a theory of implied contract, and the underlying action against the insured is limited to theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit ( Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 A.D.2d 279). Recovery in quantum meruit is treated as subsumed in a claim for breach of implied contract ( see, Heydt Contr. Corp. v Tishman Constr. Corp., 163 A.D.2d 196, 197), as is recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment ( see, Matter of Argersinger, 168 A.D.2d 757, 758). Therefore, sufficient has been shown to justify a declaration in the insured's favor.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.