Opinion ID: 2083028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pro tanto credit

Text: Under Maryland's Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, A release by the injured person of one joint tort-feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tort-feasors unless the release so provides; but reduces the claim against the other tort-feasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release, or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid. MD. ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-1404 (1998 Repl.Vol.) As we said in Mozie, the Maryland statute makes clear that the non-settling defendant has a right, unless the release provides to the contrary, to seek contribution from the settling defendant or non-party who is found liable as a joint tortfeasor or where the release provides that the settling defendant shall be deemed to be a joint tortfeasor. 623 A.2d at 617 (emphasis added). In Mozie there were two defendants, one who settled and one who did not, and plaintiff signed a release requiring a judicial determination that the settling party was a joint tortfeasor before the non-settling defendant would be entitled to contribution in the amount of a pro rata share against any judgment in the plaintiff's favor. See id. at 616. As no such subsequent judicial determination was made, the two defendants were not joint tortfeasors, and the non-settling defendant was not entitled to contribution from the settling defendant. See id. at 618. Applying Maryland law to this appeal, we have no doubt that if Providence Hospital had been sued in Maryland, the court would not apply a pro tanto credit against the jury's verdict in the amount of appellant's settlement with Days Inn. For Providence Hospital to be entitled to such a credit, the Maryland statute requires that it be a joint tortfeasor with Days Inn. See Collier v. Eagle-Picher, Inc., 86 Md. App. 38, 585 A.2d 256, 265 (1991) (holding that issues of reduction and contribution based on settlements entered into by plaintiffs are governed by the Act and that only releases given to joint tortfeasors will give rise to rights of reduction and contribution). The statute defines joint tortfeasors as `two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them.' Id. (quoting MD. ANN.CODE ART 50, § 16(a) (Supp.1991)). In this case, there has been no determination or stipulation that the Maryland defendants and Providence Hospital were joint tortfeasors. See supra note 5. The Settlement Agreement was entered into in Maryland on March 5, 1995, well after appellant had filed her lawsuit against Providence Hospital in D.C. in May 1994, suggesting that the parties were aware that appellant was proceeding in two different tribunals against separate defendants. [I]t is clear that the Maryland courts will give effect to the language in the parties' release. Mozie, 623 A.2d at 618. The Settlement Agreement not only refers to the Maryland defendants as the sole releasees, but also unequivocally states that it is a compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and the payments are not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the [Maryland defendants], by whom liability is denied. In Swigert v. Welk, 213 Md. 613, 133 A.2d 428, 431 (1957), the Maryland Court of Appeals interpreted the statute as making it clear that a denial of liability will not suffice to establish liability as a joint tortfeasor. See Mozie, 623 A.2d at 618. Cf. Collier, 585 A.2d at 266 (noting that where an agreement provides that the releasee is to be regarded as a joint tortfeasor, even though he may disclaim liability . . . the releasee's status as a joint tortfeasor is contractually determined). On this record, therefore, Providence Hospital has not shown a necessary prerequisite for a pro tanto credit as a right of contribution under Maryland law, that it is a joint tortfeasor with the Maryland defendants. Reversed and Remanded.