Abstract

Comment: Torts
The Arizona legislature recently enacted the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. The Act created a right of contribution among joint tortfeasors and abolished the Arizona common law rule prohibiting contribution among joint tortfeasors. The statute provides that a settlement made in "good faith" extinguishes the settling tortfeasor's liability for contribution. The settlement does not discharge any other joint tortfeasor from liability; however, it does reduce the claim against the nonsettling tortfeasor pro tanto.

The statute provides an important exception to the contribution rule. If the parties have not made a good faith settlement, the settlement does not discharge the settling tortfeasor from liability for contribution. Accordingly, the meaning of good faith settlement is crucial to the operation of the exception.

Since the Arizona Contribution Act does not define good faith settlement, courts may adopt a standard consistent with legislative objectives. A commentary to Arizona's Contribution Act suggests four general legislative purposes: first, to promote fairness in the tort system for both plaintiffs and defendants; second, to encourage settlement of complex, multi-party tort litigation; third, to improve judicial efficiency in tort cases; and fourth, to prevent the use of "Gallagher covenants" against the government and other deep pocket defendants.

For judicial interpretation of good faith settlement, Arizona courts would profit from an examination of California law in light of these legislative objectives. This Comment will examine the two principal ways California courts have interpreted good faith settlement, focusing on each interpretation's ability to further Arizona's legislative objectives. The Comment determines that the reasonable range rule, adopted by the California Supreme Court in Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, best advances those objectives.

How to Cite