Court Opinion

ID: 9673640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:15:45.955624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.309121
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Appellant .on rehearing insists that we did not consider two of the propositions of law presented in the original brifef. We did consider such propositions, but did not write to them. They were not considered as applicable to the issue to be determined.
Proposition III was that since payments were made to appellant by the defendant’s insurance carrier, rather than by the insured and receipt therefor taken by the insurer, State Farm, which is not a party to the suit, credit may not be claimed by the insured for such payment.
We are unable to accept this proposition. ■ Clearly, State Farm had no obligation to *272pay appellant other than on behalf of its insured. The defendant insureds were the real parties in interest in the agreements between State Farm and appellant. It does not matter under which of its policies credit for payment is claimed, since State Farm insured both defendants who were determined by the verdict and judgment to he joint tort-feasors.
Appellant’s Proposition of Law V asserts the principle of lack of right to contribution as between joint tort-feasors. We fail to see how this principle applies in this case.
Appellant on rehearing states the proposition as follows:
“In view of Alabama law which permits no right of contribution among joint tort-feasors the plaintiff is at liberty to execute against either defendant and the other defendant has no right to set off or claim a credit by way of contribution.”
This statement is not a correct statement of the law of contribution between joint tort-feasors. This principle is only applicable to an action to enforce contributions between the joint tort-feasors. It is entirely inaccurate to say that a joint tort-feasor cannot claim credit as against the plaintiff for any sums paid her by another joint tort-feasor.
A plaintiff may not sue tort-feasors jointly, recover judgment against both and recover the full amount of the judgment from both. Such plaintiff may recover for her single injury, though proximately caused by joint tort, only once. If either tort-feasor pays the judgment, recovery may not be had from the other. This principle is made clear in the first paragraph' of the opinion in the case cited by appellant — Gobble v. Bradford, 226 Ala. 517, 147 So. 619.
The defense of no contribution as between joint tort-feasors is- available only in actions seeking such contribution between such joint tort-feasors. Gobble v. Bradford, supra.
Opinion extended — rehearing denied.