We review a grant of summary judgment by applying the same methodology as the trial court. Because that methodology has been recited often, we do not repeat it here except to observe that summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no disputed issue of material fact that would require a trial, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is inappropriate when the contract at issue is ambiguous and the parties' intent is disputed. Whether a contract is ambiguous in the first instance is a question of law we decide independently of the trial court. Wausau Underwriters Ins.
Ambiguity exists if the contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.
The trucks are to average 13 to 14 tons per load. Relying on the rules of construction that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render a portion of the contract surplus and that all parts are to be given meaning, Frederickson argues that the contract binds Fox River until August 1, 1998. Fox River, however, claims that the contract's clear and unambiguous terms provide only for a continuing guarantee of price and do not provide for any specific term. We conclude that the contract language in question is ambiguous. Ambiguity exists if the contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.