In this action for contribution, ORS 18.430 et seq, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of involuntary dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence. ORCP 54B(2). Defendant cross-assigns error to the trial court’s ruling that allowed plaintiff to seek contribution in excess of his liability insurance deductible. We reverse.

In July, 1990, defendant Alley, a farmer, hired plaintiff Jensen, a crop duster, to spray insecticide on defendant’s mint crop. Adjacent landowners, Robert and Roberta Vanek, brought trespass and negligence claims against both plaintiff and defendant, alleging that the insecticide sprayed by plaintiff had damaged their pollinating bees and carrot seed crop. Before trial in that case, plaintiffs insurer settled all of the Vaneks’ claims against both plaintiff and defendant for $60,000. 1 The Vaneks’ claims against both plaintiff and defendant were then dismissed. Defendant did not participate in the settlement.

In April, 1992, plaintiff filed this action for contribution, alleging that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff had paid in excess of his proportional share of the liability in the settlement with the Vaneks. ORS 18.440. On the day of trial, defendant made a preliminary motion to exclude evidence of the settlement between plaintiff and the Vaneks, and argued that plaintiffs proof of damages should entail proof of the entire case that was or could have been proven by the Vaneks against plaintiff and defendant. The trial court ruled that evidence of the settlement was admissible, but that “plaintiff would have to prove all the damage and liability details of the underlying case brought by Vanek [sic].” Plaintiff was neither prepared nor willing to present such a detailed case at that time. The parties then stipulated that plaintiff could make an offer of proof to set forth the case that he was prepared to prove and further agreed that the offer of proof would serve as the basis for the trial court’s judgment.

Plaintiffs offer of proof included testimony regarding defendant’s liability, a copy of the complaint in the Vaneks’ underlying action and a copy of the release settling *676 the Vaneks’ claims against both plaintiff and defendant for $60,000. At the conclusion of plaintiffs offer of proof, defendant moved for involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs case for insufficient evidence. ORCP 54B(2). In granting defendant’s motion, the trial court concluded that plaintiffs offer of proof contained sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of common liability, but that plaintiff had not shown damages with sufficient specificity. 2

The first question on appeal is our scope of review. Plaintiff cites Kahn v. Weldin, 60 Or App 365, 373, 653 P2d 1268 (1982), rev den 294 Or 682 (1983), for the proposition that we review a contribution claim de novo. However, plaintiff appeals from an ORCP 54B (2) judgment of dismissal that, because it did not recite that it was with prejudice, is a dismissal without prejudice. ORCP 54B(4). The scope of review from an ORCP 54B(2) judgment of dismissal without prejudice is limited to whether plaintiff established a prima facie case. Gearhart v. Employment Div., 99 Or App 601, 603-04, 783 P2d 536 (1989), rev den 310 Or 70 (1990). Prima facie evidence is “that degree of proof which, unexplained or uncontradicted, is alone sufficient to establish the truth of a legal principle asserted by a party.” State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459, 463, 693 P2d 635 (1985).

The right to contribution among joint tortfeasors is governed by statute. ORS 18.430 et seq; Blackledge v. Harrington, 291 Or 691, 694, 634 P2d 243 (1981). ORS 18.440 is Oregon’s version of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasor’s Act (UCATA). The purpose of the UCATA is to encourage rather than discourage settlements. See Commissioner’s Comment to Section 1(d), 12 Uniform Laws Annotated 65 (1975). No Oregon cases have specifically set forth *677 the elements required to establish a prima facie claim for contribution under ORS 18.440. 3

The four elements of a claim for contribution are apparent on the face of ORS 18.440. They are:

(1) joint liability in tort for the same injury (ORS 18.440(1));

(2) payment by the contribution plaintiff of more than a proportional share of the common liability (ORS 18.440(2));

(3) settlement extinguishing the contribution defendant’s liability for the injury or wrongful death (ORS 18.440(3)); and

(4) settlement that was not in excess of what was reasonable for the injury or wrongful death (ORS 18.440(3)).

See also Ogle v. Craig Taylor Equipment Co., 761 P2d 722, 725 (Alaska 1988).

Defendant does not cross-appeal and does not cross-assign error to the trial court’s finding of common liability. Neither party contends that there was insufficient evidence of the second or third elements. Thus, the sole issue is whether plaintiffs offer of proof contained sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case that plaintiffs settlement with the Vaneks was not in excess of what was reasonable. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to prove with specificity all of the damages in an underlying claim by the Vaneks. He asserts that a contribution plaintiff need prove *678 only the fact and amount of settlement to establish its reasonableness. Defendant contends that “plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of contribution as required by ORS 18.440 and presented evidence insufficient to sustain its claim as a matter of law.”

ORS 18.440(3) does not require a contribution plaintiff to prove all of the damages suffered by the underlying plaintiff in order to recover from the contribution defendant. Rather, the focus of the statute is on the reasonableness of the settlement between the contribution plaintiff and the underlying plaintiff. It protects a contribution defendant from having to pay contribution toward a settlement that was in excess of what was reasonable.

If a contribution plaintiff is not required by ORS 18.440(3) to prove all of the damages suffered by the underlying plaintiff in order to recover from the contribution defendant, such a level of proof cannot be the requirement for a prima facie case. The issue, therefore, is whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of his settlement with Vanek.

Plaintiffs offer of proof included a copy of the Vaneks’ complaint against plaintiff and defendant alleging a crop loss of approximately 78 percent and total damages of $87,221.50. The offer of proof also included a copy of the release settling the Vaneks’ claims for $60,000. Those documents were sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that the settlement was reasonable. Plaintiff therefore presented a prima facie case of reasonableness under the contribution statute. The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Defendant cross-assigns error to the trial court’s ruling that plaintiffs contribution claim was not limited to $1,000, the amount of his deductible. He argues that plaintiff should not be allowed to recover in excess of $1,000, because the insurance company, not plaintiff, is the real party in interest as to the additional $59,000 of the settlement. Plaintiff contends that it was unnecessary to name the insurance company, because plaintiffs insurer had previously filed a ratification with the court pursuant to ORCP 26A.

*679 ORCP 26A provides, in part:

“Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. * * * No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis supplied.)

ORCP 26A is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). See Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to ORCP 26, reprinted in Merrill, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure: 1992 Handbook 69 (1991). The purpose of the real party in interest requirement is to protect the defendant from being again harassed for the same cause of action. Verret v. Leagjeld, 263 Or 112, 114-15, 501 P2d 780 (1972); Reutter v. RWS Construction, Inc., 128 Or App 365, 875 P2d 1187 (1994); see also Prosperity Realty, Inc. v. Haco-Canon, 724 F Supp 254 (SDNY 1989).

Case law discussing the use of ratification in lieu of substitution or joinder to satisfy the real party in interest rule is rare. Its principal area of application appears to be cases such as this one, where an insurer who has paid all or a part of a claim is subrogated to its insured’s right of recovery but does not want to pursue the action in its own name. Ratification consists of the real party in interest filing a certificate that the present plaintiff is authorized to prosecute the action for its benefit, and that the real party in interest agrees to be bound by the final determination in the case. Pace v. General Electric Company, 55 FRD 215, 219 (WD Pa 1972). Its application was demonstrated in Hancotte v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 93 FRD 845, 846 (ED Pa 1982), where the court denied the defendant’s motion for joinder of an insurance company, holding that the ratification agreement afforded the defendant the same protection against subsequent actions that was provided by FRCP 17(a). See also Southern Nat. Bank of Houston, Tex. v. Tri Financial Corp., 317 F Supp 1173, 1188 (SD Tex 1970), aff’d in part, vacated in part, on other grounds 458 F2d 688 (5th Cir 1972).

*680 In this case, plaintiffs insurer filed a document with the trial court, entitled “RATIFICATION,” that incorporated the caption for this matter and stated:

“[Plaintiffs insurer] agrees to be bound by the decision rendered in such action and not to bring any separate action in its own name and right against [defendant].”

The document was signed by plaintiffs attorney as ‘ ‘Attorney in Fact” for plaintiffs insurer.

Given the purpose behind the real party in interest rule, we can see no reason why the ratification procedure used by insurer, and authorized in ORCP 26A, should not allow plaintiff to seek contribution for the entire amount of the settlement with the Vaneks. The ratification filed by plaintiffs insurer will protect defendant from any subsequent action. It places defendant in the same position he would have been in if insurer had executed a loan receipt.

The trial court did not err in allowing plaintiff to seek more than the $1,000 deductible in his contribution claim against defendant.

Reversed and remanded.