Opinion ID: 2566006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The good-faith ruling in connection with TDC's claim of contribution under NRS 17.225

Text: TDC argues that the district court's erroneous good-faith ruling improperly voided its perfected contribution rights. TDC reasons that Vincent, as the last defendant to settle, cannot, by obtaining a good-faith determination, cut off or extinguish contribution rights perfected by previously settled defendants. While this argument is valid as far as it goes, TDC's counsel conceded at the oral argument of this appeal that TDC's settlement on behalf of the TDC defendants, by its terms, did not extinguish Vincent's liability. [14] This omission is fatal to TDC's potential contribution claim as a matter of law. In this connection, NRS 17.225(3) provides: A tortfeasor who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution from another tortfeasor whose liability for the injury or wrongful death is not extinguished by the settlement.... Under NRS 17.225(3), once TDC settled without extinguishing Vincent's liability, Vincent became immune to TDC's contribution action. [15] Accordingly, the ultimate approval of Vincent's settlement as in good faith did not, in any respect, cut off perfected contribution rights held by TDC. [16] This being the case, TDC's failure to perfect its contribution rights in the first instance renders moot any appellate assignments of error concerning the effect of the good-faith ruling on that claim. Thus, insofar as the good-faith ruling had implications for a potential contribution claim by TDC against Vincent, the district court committed no abuse of discretion in approving the settlement. [17] Given the express terms of NRS 17.225, counsel for TDC agreed at the oral argument of this appeal that reversal of the district court's order would only entitle TDC to press its claim for implied indemnity against Vincent.