Opinion ID: 577164
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contribution Justification

Text: 145 The Hoffer Group next challenges the district court's consideration of the claimed contribution justification--the possibility that the State would bring claims for contribution against the settling MDL 551 Defendants if Hoffer were allowed to continue--to support its conclusion that the State's contribution to the Consolidated Settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. 16 The Hoffer Group contends that under applicable Washington law, the State would be precluded from recovery of contribution. 146 We agree with the Hoffer Group that under applicable law, it would be unlikely that the State of Washington could recover contribution from the settling MDL 551 Defendants. The relevant statute, section 4.22.060(2) of the Washington Revised Code, states in pertinent part: A release, covenant not to sue, covenant not to enforce judgment, or similar agreement entered into by a claimant and a person liable discharges that person from all liability for contribution. ... Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 4.22.060 (1988); see also Zamora v. Mobil Oil Co., 104 Wash.2d 211, 218, 704 P.2d 591, 596 (1985) (holding that in the absence of contractual arrangement between the defendants to the contrary, contribution and indemnity rights do not survive a settlement under section 4.22.060(2)). Nonetheless, we find no error in the district court's observation that there is more value to Class Members in resolving the Hoffer claims than might appear viewing the settlement amount in isolation. In re Washington Public Power, 720 F.Supp. at 1416. The district court's primary concern if the State brought contribution claims against the settling MDL 551 Defendants was that the MDL 551 Class Members might be required to use monies from the Settlement Fund to make indemnification payments for amounts that could be assessed against those defendants. See 720 F.Supp. at 1416 (Plaintiffs would essentially be required to fund themselves with settlement money.). This concern is largely identical to the district court's [m]ore significant[ ] finding that any total damage award for the torts alleged in Hoffer would be subject to reduction for damages found to be caused by the MDL 551 Defendants. Id. See Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 4.22.060(2) (1988) (the claim of the releasing person against other persons is reduced by the amount paid pursuant to the agreement unless the amount paid was unreasonable.... (emphasis added)). In the district court's words, any aggregate recovery that might be attained for Plaintiffs' damages would be offset by the amount of the MDL settlement payments. 720 F.Supp. at 1416. Thus, although it is possible that the aggregate recovery attained by the Hoffer Group would be reduced more substantially through claims for contribution against the settling MDL 551 Defendants, under either theory, the aggregate recovery in Hoffer could be reduced at a minimum by the amount of the MDL 551 settlements. Because we find these concerns to be largely identical, we reject the Hoffer Group's contention that the consideration of the claimed contribution justification warrants reversal of the district court's approval of the Consolidated Settlement. 147