is limited in applicability to only cases, like this one, in which the total noneconomic damages awarded by the jury were in excess of both of the $250,000 caps and in excess of the $500,000 combined total of both applicable caps; the jury here awarded $1,725,000 in noneconomic damages. 29 . Chesser argues that because a jointly and severally liable defendant possesses a right of contribution, the statutory provisions at issue do not conflict. A right of contribution, however, presupposes that the defendant has actually paid the damages — that is, has already been civilly liable — for noneconomic damages in excess of the $250,000 cap applicable to that defendant, in violation of the express language of section 74.301(b). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 33.015(a), (b) (West 2008) (<HOLDING>). 30 . Appellees concede that Hospital remains
recognizing a right to contribution recognizing that prior to 1949 when the statute permitting contribution among joint tortfeasors was enacted no right of contribution existed between jointtortfeasors in delaware recognizing contribution in the appropriate case recognizing in both subsections a right of contribution when a defendant has paid a percentage of damages greater than his percentage of responsibility recognizing right of contribution against joint tortfeasor where release is obtained on his behalf