Opinion ID: 1116106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: amount of the contribution award

Text: DeHavilland argues that the trial court erred when it decreased the contribution award by the face value of the separate liability judgment against Ehredt. [8] DeHavilland asserts that the finding that it paid Walters fair value for the assignment of the judgment is not supported by the evidence. However, Ehredt demonstrated that he has sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment in full, hence there is evidence that the assignment was worth the amount of the judgment. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Ehredt's required contribution. Ehredt urges us to consider the defendants' relative degrees of fault as found by the jury in determining the amount of contribution to avoid injustice. [9] AS 09.16.020(3). However, we have indicated that the prohibition against considering relative fault in AS 09.16.020(1) makes this a question for the legislature. Criterion Insurance v. Laitala, 658 P.2d 112, 118 n. 11 (Alaska 1983). We refuse to avoid the clear language of subparagraph (1) prohibiting contribution according to relative fault by relying on our statutory power to avoid injustice found in subparagraph (3).