Opinion ID: 1403743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Halliburton's claim for contribution still exists.

Text: Halliburton goes to great lengths arguing that its claims for contribution asserted against Texas Keystone and Falcon Drilling are still viable despite its settlement with the Plaintiffs. Just last Term, counsel for Halliburton made this identical argument in Jennings v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 224 W.Va. 636, ___, 687 S.E.2d 574 (2009). This Court resolved this issue by confirming that such claims for contribution were extinguished due to a good faith settlement with a plaintiff. Specifically, the Court stated: It is an established principle that [i]n West Virginia one joint tort-feasor is entitled to contribution from another joint tort-feasor[.] Syllabus Point 3, Haynes v. City of Nitro, 161 W.Va. 230, 240 S.E.2d 544 (1977). See also, Syllabus Point 3, Sitzes v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 169 W.Va. 698, 289 S.E.2d 679 (1982) (As between joint tortfeasors, a right of comparative contribution exists inter se based upon their relative degrees of primary fault or negligence.). It is just as established, however, that a right to contribution can only be invoked by one of the joint tortfeasors in the litigation.  169 W.Va. at 713, 289 S.E.2d at 688 (emphasis added). When a tortfeasor elect[s] to remain in the case he . . . will be liable for contribution in favor of the other joint tortfeasor[.] Reager v. Anderson, 179 W.Va. 691, 704, 371 S.E.2d 619, 632 (1988). If a tortfeasor is not a part of the litigationwhether because of a settlement or because the tortfeasor was not suedour law is clear that no contribution may be had from that tortfeasor. See Syllabus Point 6, Charleston Area Medical Center v. Parke-Davis, 217 W.Va. 15, 614 S.E.2d 15 (2005) ([A] tortfeasor who negotiates and consummates a settlement with an injured party on behalf of itself before any lawsuit is filed cannot subsequently bring an action seeking contribution from a tortfeasor who was not apprised of and not a party to the settlement negotiations and agreement.); Lombard Canada, Ltd. v. Johnson, 217 W.Va. 437, 618 S.E.2d 446 (2005) (same); Board of Educ. v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. at 603-04, 390 S.E.2d at 802-03 (The fundamental purpose of inchoate contribution is to enable all parties who have contributed to the plaintiff's injuries to be brought into one suit. Not only is judicial economy served, but such a procedure also furthers one of the primary goals of any system of justiceto avoid piecemeal litigation which cultivates a multiplicity of suits and often results in disparate and unjust verdicts.). In the instant case, Farmers Mutual is no longer a tortfeasor that remains in the litigation. Accordingly, we believe that the circuit court's conclusionthat the claims of contribution between Farmers Mutual and Mr. Fike were extinguished by the good faith settlement with the plaintiff was correct. 224 W.Va. at 640, 687 S.E.2d at 578. Similarly, in the instant case, because of Halliburton's settlement with the Plaintiffs, it is no longer a tortfeasor that remains in the litigation. Thus, the claims for contribution between Halliburton, Texas Keystone and Falcon Drilling were extinguished when Halliburton entered its settlement with the Plaintiffs.