Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This chapter may be cited as the "Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act."
Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3101.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996).
Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996). “[3] Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-11-101 to XX-XX-XXX (1980).”
Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1995). “(d/b/a Cactus Jack's) appeals from the holding of the Court of Appeals denying its motion to dismiss and requiring the contribution action brought against it by Safeco Insurance Company to be tried under the principles of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) …”
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). “7 Further, because a particular defendant will henceforth be liable only for the percentage of a plaintiff’s damages occasioned by that defendant’s negligence, situations where a defendant has paid more than his “share” of a judgment will no longer arise, and therefore the…”
Est. of Bell v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823 (Tenn. 2010). “[14] This Act is currently codified as amended at Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-11-101 to -106 (2000).”
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000). “”); Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-101 , et seq. (providing a contribution remedy that is distinct from the underlying tort remedy).”
Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-Am., Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “T.C.A. §§ 29-11-101 through 29-11-106. Wilkinson & Snowden and Saliba appeal from this order on the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the three defendants against whom default judgments were taken in allocating the pro rata shares for contribution.”
Tip's Package Store, Inc. v. Com. Ins. Managers, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Defendant Price Waterhouse argued that the settlement agreement precluded recovery against all defendants pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-101. The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.”
Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 936 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-11-101 to -106. No Tennessee court has allowed and no Tennessee court would allow a contribution claim under the statute where the only underlying cause of action is for breach of contract.”
Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank, 619 F. Supp. 1327 (W.D. Tenn. 1985). “In its reply to that motion, Fort Deposit Bank asserted that the statute of limitations provided for in the contribution statute, Tenn.Code Ann § 29-11-101 et seq. (1980), governs actions for contribution and that Tenn.”
Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1988). “” The reasoning utilized by the Florida court can be found within the parameters of T.C.A. § 29-11-101, et seq. The provisions of T.”
Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983). “While the authors asserted that the adoption of such a system could be achieved by court action, it was recognized that for all practical purposes in Tennessee legislative participation would be needed because of the language of the present Tennessee Contribution Among…”
First Am. Title Ins. v. Cumberland Cnty. Bank, 633 F. Supp. 2d 566 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). “Thus, contribution is only available against joint tort-feasors, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-101, or joint obligors, see e.”
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.