Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): be proved in support of the claim. See id. It is well-settled that North Carolina law precludes a plaintiff from recovering more than one-satisfaction for the same injury, caused by different parties. “Both reason and justice decree that there should be collected no double compensation, or even overcompensation, for any injury, however many sources of compensation there may be.... Any amount paid by anybody, whether they be joint tort-feasors or otherwise, for and on account of any injury or damage, should be held for a credit on the total recovery in any action for the same injury or damage.” Holland v. Southern Public Utilities Co., Inc., 208 N.C. 289, 292, 180 S.E. 592, 593-94 (1935). See also Chemimetals Processing, Inc. v. Schrimsher, 140 N.C.App. 135, 138, 535 S.E.2d 594 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc., 205 F.3d 731, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that duplication of damages or double recovery is impermissible (B) holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate (C) holding that recovery is limited to actual compensatory damages (D) holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury (E) holding that it is not
Output (English): holding that duplication of damages or double recovery is impermissible