(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, where two or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property or for the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them.
(b) The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tort-feasor who has paid more than his pro rata share of the common liability, and his total recovery is limited to the amount paid by him in excess of his pro rata share. No tort-feasor is compelled to make contribution beyond his own pro rata share of the entire liability.
(c) There is no right of contribution in favor of any tort-feasor who has intentionally caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death.
(d) A tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution from another tort-feasor whose liability for the injury or wrongful death has not been extinguished nor in respect to any amount paid in a settlement which is in excess of what was reasonable.
(e) A liability insurer, who by payment has discharged in full or in part the liability of a tort-feasor and has thereby discharged in full its obligation as insurer, succeeds to the tort-feasor's right of contribution to the extent of the amount it has paid in excess of the tort-feasor's pro rata share of the common liability. This provision does not limit or impair any right of subrogation arising from any other relationship.
(f) This Article does not impair any right of indemnity under existing law. Where one tort-feasor is entitled to indemnity from another, the right of the indemnity obligee is for indemnity and not contribution, and the indemnity obligor is not entitled to contribution from the obligee for any portion of his indemnity obligation.
(g) This Article shall not apply to breaches of trust or of other fiduciary obligation.
(h) The provisions of this Article shall apply to tort claims against the State. However, in such cases, the same rules governing liability and the limits of liability shall apply to the State and its agencies as in cases heard before the Industrial Commission. The State's share in such cases shall not exceed the pro rata share based upon the maximum amount of liability under the Tort Claims Act.
(i) The provisions of this Article shall apply to the injury or death of an employee of any common carrier by rail which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 45 of the United States Code (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) or G.S. 62-242 where such injury or death is caused by the joint or concurring negligence of such common carrier by rail and any other person or persons. In any such instance, the following will apply:
(1) Where liability is imposed or sought to be imposed only on such common carrier by rail, the railroad is entitled to contribution from any other such person or persons;
(2) Where liability is imposed or sought to be imposed only on a person or persons other than a common carrier by rail, such other person or persons are entitled to contribution from the railroad;
(3) Where liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on both a common carrier by rail and any other person or persons, damages shall be determined as provided in Chapter 2 of Title 45 of the United States Code (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) or G.S. 62-242 whichever controls the claim. (1967, c. 847, s. 1; 1975, c. 587, s. 2; 1979, c. 620.)
Notes of Decisions
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Holland, 380 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1989).
· cites it 30× “In the instant case, State Farm sued Holland for contribution of one-half of the $50,000 settlement pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1B-1, et seq. Holland's motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge Douglas Albright.”
Yates v. New South Pizza, Ltd., 412 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 24× “The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that the covenant not to sue released any claim against defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court further held that when there is a right of indemnity from another tort-feasor, the Uniform…”
Sterling v. Gil Soucy Trucking, Ltd., 552 S.E.2d 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 13× “N.C.G.S. § 1B-1(b). Because defendants have not paid their share, have suffered no harm, the issue of contribution by third-party defendants (Jennifer and Clayton Lowman and West) is not ripe for resolution by this Court.”
United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884 (E.D.N.C. 1985).
· cites it 2× “, is estopped from denying his knowing participation in the PCB dumpings in those counties. And, as a consequence, he may not seek contribution from the third-party defendants for the cleanup costs of the spills in those counties as he is an intentional tortfeasor.”
Harris v. Miller, 438 S.E.2d 731 (N.C. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff argues correctly that this rule has been abrogated by the Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 1B-1 to -6 (1983). The Act provides as follows: When a release or a covenant not to sue.”
Selective Ins. v. NCNB Nat'l Bank, 380 S.E.2d 521 (N.C. 1989).
· cites it 9× “1 Sovereign immunity *564 for claims against the State for contribution has been waived by N.C.G.S. § 1B-1(h) which allows the State to be sued for contribution as a joint tort-feasor.”
Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of NC v. Mauldin, 529 S.E.2d 697 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “§ 1-240 with the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, G.S. § 1B-1, et seq. The purpose of the Act was to “distribute the burden of responsibility equitably among those who are jointly liable and thus avoid the injustice often resulting under the common law.”
Holland v. Edgerton, 355 S.E.2d 514 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Under G.S. 1B-1(a), a defendant is entitled to contribution where he and one or more other persons are jointly or severally liable in tort.”
Woodrum v. Johnson, 559 S.E.2d 908 (W. Va. 2001).
“The statute, codifying the UCAJTA as North Carolina General Statute §§ 1B-1 to 1B6, provided that: When a release or a covenant not to sue.”
Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hosp. Ventures, 424 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “See N.C.G.S. §§ 1B-1 to -7 (1983) (right of prorata contribution among parties jointly and severally liable for same tort injury).”
Bowman v. Alan Vester Ford Lincoln Mercury, 566 S.E.2d 818 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs in proximately causing and producing Plaintiffs [sic] alleged injuries and damages; and in the event that the Plaintiff [sic] is adjudged entitled to recover damages from the Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, then, in that event, the Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs…”
Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC v. Ap Atl., Inc., 2019 NCBC 46 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Similarly, under N.C.G.S. § 1B-1, which governs the right of parties to contribution in North Carolina, “there is no right to contribution from one who is not a joint tort-feasor.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(a) — 11 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Holland, 380 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1989).
“In the instant case, State Farm sued Holland for contribution of one-half of the $50,000 settlement pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1B-1, et seq. Holland's motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge Douglas Albright.”
Yates v. New South Pizza, Ltd., 412 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. 1992).
“The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that the covenant not to sue released any claim against defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court further held that when there is a right of indemnity from another tort-feasor, the Uniform…”
Holland v. Edgerton, 355 S.E.2d 514 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).
“Under G.S. 1B-1(a), a defendant is entitled to contribution where he and one or more other persons are jointly or severally liable in tort.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(b) — 4 cases
Sterling v. Gil Soucy Trucking, Ltd., 552 S.E.2d 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
“N.C.G.S. § 1B-1(b). Because defendants have not paid their share, have suffered no harm, the issue of contribution by third-party defendants (Jennifer and Clayton Lowman and West) is not ripe for resolution by this Court.”
Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of NC v. Mauldin, 529 S.E.2d 697 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
“§ 1-240 with the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, G.S. § 1B-1, et seq. The purpose of the Act was to “distribute the burden of responsibility equitably among those who are jointly liable and thus avoid the injustice often resulting under the common law.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(c) — 5 cases
United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884 (E.D.N.C. 1985).
“, is estopped from denying his knowing participation in the PCB dumpings in those counties. And, as a consequence, he may not seek contribution from the third-party defendants for the cleanup costs of the spills in those counties as he is an intentional tortfeasor.”
Holland v. Edgerton, 355 S.E.2d 514 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).
“Under G.S. 1B-1(a), a defendant is entitled to contribution where he and one or more other persons are jointly or severally liable in tort.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(d) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(f) — 1 case
Yates v. New South Pizza, Ltd., 412 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. 1992).
“The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that the covenant not to sue released any claim against defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court further held that when there is a right of indemnity from another tort-feasor, the Uniform…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(g) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1(h) — 2 cases
Selective Ins. v. NCNB Nat'l Bank, 380 S.E.2d 521 (N.C. 1989).
“1 Sovereign immunity *564 for claims against the State for contribution has been waived by N.C.G.S. § 1B-1(h) which allows the State to be sued for contribution as a joint tort-feasor.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.