Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102 (2026)

Right of contribution among tort-feasors - Exceptions - Subrogation - Indemnity

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter where two (2) or more persons are 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; but no right of contribution shall exist where, by virtue of intrafamily immunity, immunity under the workers' compensation laws of the state of Tennessee, or like immunity, a claimant is barred from maintaining a tort action for injury or wrongful death against the party from whom contribution is sought.

(b) The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tort-feasor who has paid more than the proportionate share of the shared liability between two (2) or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, in accordance with the procedure set out in § 29-11-104, and the tort-feasor's total recovery is limited to the amount paid by the tort-feasor in excess of this proportionate share.

(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, 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, may be 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 proportionate share of the shared liability between two (2) or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, in accordance with the procedure set out in § 29-11-103. This provision does not limit or impair any right of subrogation or assignment arising from any other relationship and causes of action for contribution or indemnity are fully assignable and transferable.

(f) This chapter 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 tort-feasor's indemnity obligation.

(g) This chapter shall not apply to breaches of trust or of other fiduciary obligation.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 2; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A. § 23-3102; 1999, ch. 433, §§ 1, 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 10× “The petitions present three issues for our determination: (1) whether on retrial the jury may consider the fault of the plaintiff; (2) whether on retrial the jury may consider awarding punitive damages; and (3) since Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102 (d) provides that a settling…”

Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 4× “Section 29-11-102© provides: This chapter does not impair any right of indemnity under existing law.”

Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “…is "no right of contribution in favor of any tort-feasor who has intentionally caused or contributed to the injury." Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(c).”

Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 936 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). · cites it 4× “2005) (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102 (b)) (emphasis in original).”

Messer Griesheim Indus., Inc. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “MG’s argument that it is entitled under the theories of subrogation and/or contribution, to recover the funds it expended in settlement of its customers claims from Mellon and the other defendants presupposes that Mellon is, along with the other defendants, hable.”

Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(a) (1980) provides: [N]o right of contribution shall exist where, by virtue of intrafamily immunity, immunity under the workers’ compensation laws of the state of Tennessee, or like immunity, a claimant is barred from maintaining a tort action for…”

Montgomery Cnty. v. Valk Mfg. Co., 562 A.2d 1246 (Md. 1989). · cites it 2× “2d 388 (1985); Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(a) (1980) (barring contribution in the context of immunities); 10 see Liberty Mut.”

Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1988). · cites it 2× “As a result, it makes little difference if Carte is or is not found to be a fiduciary under T.C.A. § 29-11-102(g). The strictures of T.”

Manning v. Fort Deposit Bank, 619 F. Supp. 1327 (W.D. Tenn. 1985). · cites it 3× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-101 et seq. (1980).”

Duncan-Williams, Inc. v. Capstone Dev., LLC, 908 F. Supp. 2d 898 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102. This Act also “provides that a release given to one of two or more tortfeasors ‘does not dis *913 charge any of the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide.”

Smith v. Methodist Hospitals of Memphis, 995 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 29-11-102. McIntyre ended joint and several liability for the concurrent acts of tortfeasors, and General Electric explains those instances where T.”

Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Price-Waterhouse, 811 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Although T.C.A. § 29-11-102 (1980) establishes a right of contribution among tort-feasors, the common law right of indemnity is left unimpaired.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102(a) — 2 cases

Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(a) (1980) provides: [N]o right of contribution shall exist where, by virtue of intrafamily immunity, immunity under the workers’ compensation laws of the state of Tennessee, or like immunity, a claimant is barred from maintaining a tort action for…”

Montgomery Cnty. v. Valk Mfg. Co., 562 A.2d 1246 (Md. 1989). “2d 388 (1985); Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(a) (1980) (barring contribution in the context of immunities); 10 see Liberty Mut.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102(b) — 1 case

Engstrom v. Mayfield, 159 F. App'x 697 (6th Cir. 2005).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102(c) — 2 cases

Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001). “…is "no right of contribution in favor of any tort-feasor who has intentionally caused or contributed to the injury." Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-11-102(c).”

Eddie Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr. (Tenn. 2001).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102(f) — 1 case

Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996). “Section 29-11-102© provides: This chapter does not impair any right of indemnity under existing law.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-102(g) — 2 cases

Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1988). “As a result, it makes little difference if Carte is or is not found to be a fiduciary under T.C.A. § 29-11-102(g). The strictures of T.”

Allard v. Benjamin (In re DeLorean Motor Co.), 65 B.R. 767 (E.D. Mich. 1986).

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.