Opinion ID: 1116106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ehredt's remaining liability to walters

Text: Ehredt also argues that DeHavilland may not maintain the contribution action because the settlement did not completely extinguish Ehredt's liability to Walters. AS 09.16.010(d). [7] DeHavilland argues that it was enough to extinguish the joint and several liability; Ehredt's separate liability is irrelevant. The purpose of the act is to ensure that all tortfeasors pay their fair share of damages. The main requirement for a post-judgment agreement to be considered a satisfaction is that it terminate the litigation. Criterion Insurance v. Laitala, 658 P.2d 112, 116 (Alaska 1983). Had DeHavilland obtained releases for both the joint liability and Ehredt's separate liability, it is clear that DeHavilland could claim contribution because Ehredt's liability would be extinguished. We conclude that satisfaction of the common liability entitles DeHavilland to contribution, since each tortfeasor is thereby required to pay his fair share and there is no danger of double recovery against Ehredt.