They then filed a claim with the Board, claiming that Inspector's report was inaccurate and that they had suffered damages as a result of the inaccuracies. Inspector argued that the limitation of liability clause protected it from liability for any damages. On review, Inspector argues that the Board erred when it concluded that the liability limitation clause did not immunize Inspector from damages. It also contends that the Hoskins were under no obligation to pay for the evaluation unless they agreed to the terms of the clause and that they voluntarily agreed to the liability limitation in exchange for the benefit of the evaluation. We turn to the contractual language in the report and first examine the text of the disputed provision in the context of the document as a whole to ascertain the parties' intent.
Inspector contends that the last two sentences of the notice govern the issue.
Inspector argues that, in context, those sentences immunize it from its own negligence because the italicized language includes a claim for negligence. Read in its entirety, the clause could mean that Inspector is not responsible for discovery of conditions that occur after the inspection rather then to immunize Inspector for its own negligence. Because the language of the notice is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning, the clause cannot be construed as a matter of law. As such, we examine the extrinsic evidence in an effort to resolve the ambiguity. In this case, the Board received evidence regarding the extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties' intent.