F L. ED

COURT OF ADPEALS

DI! VIISIO" ii

2015 JUS. 21 AM 9> 26

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASIq.P

DIVISION II 3 Y

CH2O, INC., a Washington Corporation, 

Appellant, 

V. - 

MERAS ENGINEERING, INC., 

Respondent, 

E 

JAMES SHAW, individually and the marital

community comprised of JAMES SHAW and

JENNIFER SHAW, 

Third Party Defendants. 

No. 45728 -8 -II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUTTON, J. — CH2O, Inc. appeals the superior court' s summary judgment order that CH2O

cannot recover economic damages against Meras Engineering, Inc. under Section 9 of the parties' 

2007 Distributor Agreement (Agreement). CH2O argues that the trial court erred in interpreting

Section 9 of the Agreement to prohibit both parties from recovering economic damages against

one another, but not as to claims brought by third parties. We hold that, under Section 9 of the

Agreement, the parties expressly waived the right to seek economic damages from one another for

breach of the Agreement. Accordingly, we hold that CH2O cannot recover economic damages

against Meras for breach of the Agreement, but CH2O may pursue other forms of noneconomic

recovery against Meras. We affirm the superior court' s final order granting summary judgment in
No. 45728 -8 -II

favor of Meras and denying partial summary judgment to CH2O. We also award Meras, as the

prevailing party, its reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal. 

FACTS

C142O, a Washington corporation, and Meras, a California corporation, entered into an

Agreement in 2007. Both companies provide chemical water treatment products and services to

commercial customers in the United States and abroad. The parties negotiated and drafted the

Agreement together. 

At the time that the parties entered into the Agreement, CH2O had an existing customer

base in California where it sold its products. Under the Agreement, CH2O appointed Meras as a

nonexclusive distributor for the sale of particular products to specific customers. The customers

and products were identified in Addendums A and B to the Agreement, respectively. 

Section 6( a) of the Agreement provided that Meras was to " use its best efforts to develop

and maintain the market for the Products in [California]." Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 10. To this end, 

CH2O sold products to Meras for resale to its existing customers. The Agreement also contained

noncompete provisions prohibiting Meras from selling or distributing any products of CH2O' s

potential competitors that were the same or similar to CH2O' s products. The Agreement was to

continue for an initial period of three years and then automatically renew annually unless the

parties expressly terminated it;, 

On August 10, 2011, two of Meras' s principals learned for the first time of the existence

of the 2007 Agreement when Meras' s former attorney forwarded to them a letter from CH2O' s

attorney, attaching the Agreement. Meras promptly exercised its termination rights under Section

14 of the Agreement by giving written notice to CH2O of its intent to terminate the Agreement

2
No. 45728 -8 -II

within 90 days. On September 30, 2011,. CH2O received written notice from Meras' s attorney

terminating the Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement was terminated on December 31. 

CH2O subsequently learned that, during the term of the Agreement, Meras sold products similar

to CH2O' s products to CH2O' s customers. CH2O contends that this conduct violated the

noncompete provisions of Section 15 of the Agreement, as well as the " best efforts" provision of

Section 6( a) ofthe Agreement. CP at 10. CH2O also alleged that Meras failed to comply with the

portion of Section 6( a) of the Agreement that requires Meras to " refer to CH2O inquiries and

requests for [CH2O' s] Products from potential customers outside the [California area]." CP at 10. 

In January 2012, CH2O filed a lawsuit seeking economic damages for Meras' s alleged

breach of the Agreement. With its answer to the lawsuit, Meras filed a third party complaint

against its former principal, James Shaw, alleging claims arising from his negotiation and

execution of the Agreement and his failure to disclose the Agreement to Meras' s executive team

upon his separation from the company. Following mandatory alternative dispute resolution, Meras

dismissed its claims against Mr. Shaw with prejudice. 

In October and November 2012, CH2O and Meras filed cross-motions for partial summary

judgment regarding the interpretation of Section 9 of the 2007 Agreement. The superior court

granted Meras' s motion for partial summary judgment and denied CH2O' s motion. The superior

court held that CH2O " may not seek economic damages against [ Meras] for breach of the subject

Distributor Agreement." CP at 186. On January 31, 2014, the superior court entered a final order

and judgment dismissing all claims in favor of Meras and against CH2O, because its summary

judgment ruling disposed of all triable issues in this matter. CH2O appealed. 

3
No. 45728 -8 -II

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a summary judgment order de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial

court. Donatelli v. D.R. Strong Consulting Eng' rs, Inc., 179 Wn.2d 84, 90, 312 P. 3d 620 ( 2013). 

Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Donatelli, 179 Wn.2d at 90; CR 56( c). " A genuine

issue of material fact exists when reasonable minds could differ on the facts controlling the

outcome of the litigation." Dowler v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 172 Wn.2d 471, 484, 

258 P. 3d 676 ( 2011). 

When reviewing a decision on a motion for summary judgment, `[ a] question of contract

interpretation may be determined as a matter oflaw ifit does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic

evidence or ... a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence."' 

Donatelli, 179 Wn.2d at 107 ( quoting Kofinehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC, 177 Wn.2d 584, 594, 

305 P. 3d 230 ( 2013)) ( alteration in original). Contract interpretation is a question of law when

1) the interpretation does not depend on the use of extrinsic evidence, or (2) only one reasonable

inference can be drawn from the extrinsic evidence."' United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Coleman, 173 Wn. 

App. 463, 472, 295 P. 3d 763 ( 2012) ( quoting Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 

128 Wn.2d 656, 674, 911 P. 2d 1301 ( 1996)). 

When- interpreting a contract, we give ordinary meaning to the words in the contract and

try to effect the parties' mutual intent. City of Tacoma v. City ofBonney Lake, 173 Wn.2d 584, 

590, 269 P. 3d 1017 ( 2012); see Realm, Inc. v. City ofOlympia, 168 Wn. App. 1, 4, 277 P.3d 679
No. 45728 -8 -II

2012). " Washington courts follow the objective manifestation theory of contracts, imputing an

intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of the words used." Realm, 168 Wn. App. 

at 5. 

To interpret a contract, we must determine the parties' intent, for which we apply the

context rule."" Fedway Marketplace West, LLC v. State, 183 Wn. App. 860, 871, 336 P. 3d 615

2014) ( quoting Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm' n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 274, 279 P. 3d

943 ( 2012)). The purpose of the context rule is to determine the parties' " meeting of the minds, 

as opposed to [ their] insufficient written expression of ... intent." Tjart v. Smith Barney, Inc., 

107 Wn. App. 885, 895, 28 P. 3d 823 ( 2001). The context rule allows a court, when "` viewing the

contract ' as a whole, to consider extrinsic evidence, such as the circumstances leading to the

execution of the contract, the subsequent conduct of the parties and the reasonableness of the

parties' respective interpretations."' Fedway Marketplace West, 183 Wn. App. at 871 ( quoting

Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274). " This rule applies ` even when the disputed provision is

unambiguous."' 183 Wn. App. at 871 ( quoting Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274). 

But our consideration of `surrounding circumstances and other extrinsic evidence' is

limited ` to determin[ing] the meaning of specific words and terms used' and not to ` show an

I

The Washington Supreme Court first adopted the "` context rule"' in Berg v. Hudesman: 

The Berg Court] recognized that intent of the contracting parties cannot be

interpreted without examining the context surrounding an instrument' s execution. 

If relevant for determining mutual intent, extrinsic evidence may include ( 1) the

subject matter and objective of the contract, (2) all the circumstances surrounding

the making of the contract, (3) the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties, and

4) the reasonableness of respective interpretations urged by the parties. 

Fedway Marketplace West, LLC v. State, 183 Wn. App. 860, 871 n. 14, 336 P. 3d 615 ( 2014) 

quoting Hearst Commc' ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 502, 115 P. 3d 262 (2005)). 

5
No. 45728- 841

intention independent of the instrument' or to ` vary, contradict or modify the written word."' 

Fedway Marketplace West, 183 Wn. App. at 871 ( quoting Hearst Commc' ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times

Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 503, 115 P. 3d 262 (2005) ( emphasis in original)). 

II. SECTION 9

The disputed provision, Section 9 of the Agreement, provides as follows: 

9. Limitation of Liability. ' Neither party shall be liable to the other for

incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages, including but not limited to

loss of profits, use of capital, or business opportunity, downtime costs or claims of

customers of said party arising out of the performance, non-performance or

termination of this Agreement, whether based upon strict liability, active or passive

negligence, contract, breach of warranty or any other legal theory. 

CP. at 11. 

CH20 argues that reading Section 9 to prohibit recovery of economic damages for breach

of the Agreement is not a reasonable interpretation, and renders the contract obligations illusory, 

because it would prohibit either party from recovering any sort of economic damages against the

other for any type of claim. CH20 argues that this court should interpret Section 9 to limit the

parties' liability to one another only for third party indemnification claims, such as those brought

by " customers" as referenced in Section 9. CP at 11. 

Meras argues that Section 9 is an express and unambiguous waiver of the parties' liability

to one another for economic damages, precluding economic recovery. Meras also claims that the

tern "claims. of customers" is only one type of claim listed in Section 9, and thus the section is not

limited to only third party claims. CP at 11. 

We agree with Meras; read as a whole, Section 9 applies not just to damages for " claims

of customers," but also to damages for "loss ofprofits, use of capital, or business opportunity, [ or] 

0
No. 45728 -8 -II

downtime costs." CP at 11. The plain language of Section 9 says, " Neither party shall be liable

to the other for incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages." CP at 11. Accordingly, 

neither party may recover economic damages against the other for breach of the Agreement. 

CH2O argues that, under City ofTacoma v. Bonney Lake, we should not interpret the broad

limitation of liability in Section 9 to preclude recovery of economic damages, because limiting

liability in this manner would prevent CH2O from obtaining a viable remedy for breach. But we

reject this argument because Section 9 still permits CH2O to pursue other recovery in the form of

noneconomic damages. 

City of Tacoma involved Tacoma' s water service agreements with municipalities and a

broad indemnity provision that stated, "[ Tacoma] hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and

agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City ... from any and all claims, costs, 

judgments, awards or liability to any person." City of Tacoma, 173 Wn.2d at 593 ( alteration in

original). The municipalities argued that, because any enforcement action to compel performance

would be a " claim" arising under the contract, the indemnity provision completely precluded the

City of Tacoma from filing an action under the contract. City ofTacoma, 173 Wn.2d at 593. The

Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that interpreting such a blanket limitation of

liability into the contract would create an absurd result by allowing the indemnified party to

completely avoid its contractual obligations by claiming any enforcement action to compel

performance is a ` claim' arising under the contract." 173 Wn.2d at 593. r

But here the language in Section 9 is narrower than the broad indemnity provision in City

of Tacoma; here, Section 9 allows either party to sue the other party for breach, but it precludes

economic recovery. This is not the absurd result that CH2O claims; long-term business partners

7
No. 45728 -8 -II

may choose to preclude recovery of economic damages because they depend on each other' s

financial stability to execute a successful business strategy. The Agreement still permits either

party to dispute its obligations under the contract, to bring a suit against the other party, or to obtain

noneconomic recovery, such as specific performance or a declaratory judgment. 

A. Section 18

CH2O then argues that Section 18 ofthe Agreement would be meaningless ifthe court were

to interpret Section 9 to waive liability for economic damages. Section 18 provides for the

recovery of costs and attorney fees by the prevailing party in a dispute regarding the Agreement.2

CH2O argues that Section 18' s provision permitting recovery of costs and attorney fees would be

illusory if Section 9 is interpreted as a waiver of economic damages. . 

We agree with Meras that Section 9 of the Agreement, read as a whole, applies not just to

damages for " claims of customers," but also to damages for " loss of profits, use of capital, or

business opportunity, downtime costs or claims.of customers." CP at 11. But " a reasonable, fair, 

just, and effective meaning to all manifestations of intention," expressed in Section 18 compels us

to hold that this provision carves out a guarantee of attorney fees and costs for claims not waived

by Section 9. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. 4ss' n, 182 Wn. App. 291, 305, 

331 P. 3d 60 ( 2014). Moreover, Section 9 does not bar other recovery in the form of noneconomic

damages. And Section 18, accordingly, allows recovery of fees and costs to a prevailing party in

2

Section 18 of the Agreement between the parties provides, in relevant part, " In the event of a

dispute over any part of this Agreement, the parties agree that ... the prevailing party shall be

entitled to recover from the losing party any costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees

incurred in such dispute." CP at 13. 
No. 45728 -8 -II

an action seeking declaratory judgment or other equitable relief. This interpretation harmonizes

Sections 9 and 18. 

B. Section 13

CH2O next argues that Section 13, the Force Majeure provision, would be " superfluous" if

we interpret Section 9 to waive economic damages. Br. ofAppellant at 12. Section 13 disclaims

the parties' liability to one another in situations beyond the parties' control. But just as the parties

agreed to waive liability to one another for economic damages resulting from performance .of the

Agreement, it is reasonable for them to also specifically agree to waive liability in the event that

forces beyond the parties' control make performance impossible. 

Although the broad limitation of liability may significantly limit CH2O' s remaining

recovery since the parties already terminated the Agreement, this does not render this interpretation

of Section 9 absurd,. as CH2O argues. Both parties drafted and negotiated the Agreement and both

parties are sophisticated; we conclude that the parties understood their contracting terms, and

implicitly accepted the potential consequence that recovery may be limited or even effectively

foreclosed if a party did not timely purse its right to enforce the contract. 

Ill. EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE

The superior court considered extrinsic evidence in its summary judgment ruling. CH2O

submitted declarations from Tony McNamara, President of CH2O, and James Shaw, a

representative of Meras, both of whom were involved in the Agreement negotiations. Their

declarations stated that the parties worked together in creating the Agreement and that they

understood the Agreement to permit economic damages for breach. CH2O argues that, although

the superior court properly admitted the extrinsic evidence as an aid in ascertaining the parties' 
No. 45728 -8 -II

intent, the court erred in failing to find that this evidence supported CH2O' s interpretation of

Section 9 of the Agreement.3 CH2O contends that these declarations demonstrated that the parties

never intended Section 9 to preclude economic damages.. We disagree. 

We do " not consider [ extrinsic] evidence to ` show an intention independent of the

instrument' or to ` vary, contradict or modify the written word."' Hulbert v. Port of Everett, 

159 Wn. App. 389, 402, 245 P. 3d 779 ( 2011) ( quoting Hearst Commc' ns, 154 Wn.2d at 503). 

Because these declarations would contradict the clear terms of Section 9,. which precludes the

parties from recovering economic damages for breach, we do not consider these declarations. 

IV. AMBIGUITY

CH2O argues that it was not the sole drafter of the Agreement and Meras is not entitled to

have the contract read in the light most favorable to it. CH2O further argues that the contract

should not be construed against it unless the parties' intent cannot otherwise be determined. 

If a contract provision' s meaning is uncertain or is subject to two or more reasonable

interpretations after analyzing the language and considering extrinsic evidence (ifappropriate), the

provision is ambiguous." Viking Bank v. Firgrove Commons 3, LLC, 183 Wn. App. 706, 713, 

334 P. 3d 116 ( 2014). ' We generally construe ambiguities against the contract' s drafter." Viking

Bank, 183 Wn. App. at 713. But " if the .parties drafted the contract together, we will adopt the

interpretation that is the most reasonable and just." 183 Wn. App. at 713. 

3 Meras challenged the admission of extrinsic evidence at trial, but it did not appeal the trial court' s

ruling. The trial court considered Mr. McNamara' s declaration in its order granting Meras' s

summary judgment motion, and expressly ruled that it did not consider Meras' s motion to strike

portions of the declaration. 

10
No. 45728 -8 -II

Declarations submitted by both CH2O and Meras showed that both parties engaged in

drafting and negotiating the Agreement. Unlike an adhesion contract, the Agreement was freely

negotiated between the parties. Because we find that the terms of Section 9 clearly express the

parties' intent at the time of drafting, we decline to consider extrinsic evidence. 

V. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

Meras requests reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal. RAP 18. 1( a) and ( b) permit

a requesting party the right to recover reasonable attorney fees or expenses on appeal if applicable

law grants the party that right. Under RCW 4. 84.330, the prevailing party in an action to enforce

or defend a contract is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal where the contract so provides.4

Section 18 of the Agreement between the parties provides, in relevant part: " In the event of a

dispute over any part of this Agreement, the parties agree that ... the prevailing party shall be

entitled to recover from the losing party any costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees

incurred in such dispute." CP at 13. Because under RCW 4. 84. 330 and Section 18 of the

Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs on

appeal in a contract dispute action, we award Meras, as the prevailing party, reasonable attorney

fees and costs on appeal. 

4 RCW 4. 84.330 provides, 

In any action on a contract or lease entered into after September 21, 1977, 

where such contract or lease specifically provides that attorneys' fees and costs, 

which are incurred to enforce the provisions of such contract or lease, shall be

awarded to one of the parties, the prevailing party, whether he or she is the party

specified in the contract or lease or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' 

fees in addition to costs and necessary disbursements. 

11
No. 45728 -8 -II

CONCLUSION

We hold that, under Section 9 of the Agreement, the parties expressly waived the right to

seek economic damages from one another arising for breach ofthe Agreement. Thus CH2O cannot

seek economic damages against Meras for breach of the Agreement, but CH2O may pursue other

recovery in the form ofnoneconomic damages. We affirm the superior court' s final order granting

summary judgment in favor of Meras and denying partial summary judgment to CH2O. We also

award Meras, as the prevailing party, reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal. 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with

RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. 

We concur: 

i

JC. HANSON, C.J. 

B RGT , ., A.C. l-- -• 

12

SUTTON, J.