- Release, covenant not to sue, etc. A. When 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 except as provided in this section. B. The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tort- feasor who has paid more than their pro rata share of the common liability, and the total recovery is limited to the amount paid by the tort-feasor in excess of their pro rata share. No tort-feasor is compelled to make contribution beyond their 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 is not extinguished by the settlement nor in respect to any amount paid in a settlement which is in excess of what was reasonable. E. A liability insurer which 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, is subrogated 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 act does not impair any right of indemnity under existing law. When 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 the indemnity obligation. G. This act shall not apply to breaches of trust or of other fiduciary obligation. H. When a release, covenant not to sue, or a similar agreement is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death: 1. It does not discharge any other tort-feasor from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the other tort-feasor is specifically named; but it reduces the claim against others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is greater; and 2. It discharges the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other tort-feasor. Added by Laws 1978, c. 78, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 109, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1980; Laws 1995, c. 218, § 1, emerg. eff. May 23, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. W. Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 17× “: (1)whether indemnity is available to one who, without fault on his own part, has paid damages occasioned by the primary negligence of another, even where there exists no contractual or vicarious liability; (2) whether the rule of proportionate and several liability applies in…”
BP Pipelines (North Am.) Inc. v. C.D. Brown Constr. Inc., 473 F. App'x 818 (10th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 9× “09-5081, it argues BP’s claim for remediation damages was a contribution claim which should have been dismissed under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832 (H)(2)(1995) 1 because Brown had been released from liability by a settlement agreement in a related state court lawsuit brought by…”
Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1995), to the extent the original tortfeasor(s), the doctor and clinic share a common liability for patient’s injuries, 12 O.S.1991, § 832(H)(1), a part of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) applies, and because the involved release fails to name or otherwise…”
Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 920 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Along with this argument, Kirkpatrick claimed the release and satisfaction of judgment should be treated like a release, covenant not to sue or similar agreement under 12 O.S.1991, § 832(H), a part of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), and applying § 832(H)…”
Thomas v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 2004 OK 82 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 3× “[4] Although application of a contribution statute, 12 O.S.2001 § 832, is not at issue here, we note that use of the term "joint tortfeasor" is not appropriate when describing a party vicariously liable for another and applying § 832.”
Moore v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 773 S.W.2d 78 (Ark. 1989).
· cites it 4× “1988) (applying Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 832 (1988)); State Farm Mut.”
Woolard v. JLG Indus., Inc., 210 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Woolard's pretrial *1176 settlement with JLG, pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832 . In its calculation of prejudgment interest, the district court determined that the calculation should be based on the reduced amount of $1.”
Moss v. City of Oklahoma City, 897 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 4× “In addition, the trial court decided extrinsic evidence would not be admissible to determine the intended scope of the releases, but they must be interpreted from their plain language. Appellants appealed on the issue of the intended scope of the releases.”
Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 2003 OK 69 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 2× “3d 811, 814 , stands for the proposition that one vicariously liable in tort is not a "tortfeasor" within the meaning of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), 12 O.S.2001 § 832, and, hence, the UCATA provision, stating the release does not discharge other…”
Braden v. Hendricks, 695 P.2d 1343 (Okla. 1985).
· cites it 2× “But see the statutory change in 12 O.S.1981 § 832. 16 . Porter v. Norton-Stuart Pontiac-Cadillac of Enid, supra note 23; Cain v.”
Monfore v. Phillips, 778 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “2012) (discussing Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832 (H), which permits set-offs only when a settling party is “liable” in tort for the same injury); Nichols v.”
Hoyt v. Paul R. Miller, M.D., Inc., 921 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Wolfe as to the effect of a release of one of two or more tortfeasors potentially liable for the same injury or death had been overruled by the OMahoma Legislature by an amendment to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfea-sors Act (UCATA), 12 O.S.1991, § 832. The amendment…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(A) — 6 cases
Moss v. City of Oklahoma City, 897 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1995).
“In addition, the trial court decided extrinsic evidence would not be admissible to determine the intended scope of the releases, but they must be interpreted from their plain language. Appellants appealed on the issue of the intended scope of the releases.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(B) — 3 cases
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. W. Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989).
“: (1)whether indemnity is available to one who, without fault on his own part, has paid damages occasioned by the primary negligence of another, even where there exists no contractual or vicarious liability; (2) whether the rule of proportionate and several liability applies in…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(C) — 3 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(D) — 4 cases
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. W. Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989).
“: (1)whether indemnity is available to one who, without fault on his own part, has paid damages occasioned by the primary negligence of another, even where there exists no contractual or vicarious liability; (2) whether the rule of proportionate and several liability applies in…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(F) — 1 case
Braden v. Hendricks, 695 P.2d 1343 (Okla. 1985).
“But see the statutory change in 12 O.S.1981 § 832. 16 . Porter v. Norton-Stuart Pontiac-Cadillac of Enid, supra note 23; Cain v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(H) — 1 case
Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 920 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1996).
“Along with this argument, Kirkpatrick claimed the release and satisfaction of judgment should be treated like a release, covenant not to sue or similar agreement under 12 O.S.1991, § 832(H), a part of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), and applying § 832(H)…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 832(H)(1) — 8 cases
Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996).
“1995), to the extent the original tortfeasor(s), the doctor and clinic share a common liability for patient’s injuries, 12 O.S.1991, § 832(H)(1), a part of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) applies, and because the involved release fails to name or otherwise…”
Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 920 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1996).
“Along with this argument, Kirkpatrick claimed the release and satisfaction of judgment should be treated like a release, covenant not to sue or similar agreement under 12 O.S.1991, § 832(H), a part of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), and applying § 832(H)…”
Moss v. City of Oklahoma City, 897 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1995).
“In addition, the trial court decided extrinsic evidence would not be admissible to determine the intended scope of the releases, but they must be interpreted from their plain language. Appellants appealed on the issue of the intended scope of the releases.”
Hoyt v. Paul R. Miller, M.D., Inc., 921 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1996).
“Wolfe as to the effect of a release of one of two or more tortfeasors potentially liable for the same injury or death had been overruled by the OMahoma Legislature by an amendment to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfea-sors Act (UCATA), 12 O.S.1991, § 832. The amendment…”
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.