We review summary judgments for errors of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. As an initial matter, Acadia argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the two insurance procurement provisions in the construction contract were neither in conflict with one another, nor created an ambiguity in the contract. Whether a contract is unambiguous and, if unambiguous, its interpretation are questions of law. See Willis Realty Assoc. If the language of the contract is ambiguous, however, its interpretation is a question of fact for the factfinder.
Language is considered to be ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations.
See Guilford Transp. As described above, the two provisions that Acadia claims create an ambiguity appear on the first page of the contract giving rise to the parties' dispute in this case. These provisions, however, are not inconsistent. The insurance that was to be provided by Buck was insurance that was specific to the work itself and covered such things as third party liability and employee injuries. The insurance that was to be provided by Levesque was broader and covered the whole property, as well as covering different types of risk.