Opinion ID: 2042259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpretation of the Release.

Text: The plaintiff administrator urges that, even if Gregory's parents did have authority to release all claims against Allstate arising from his death, there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning interpretation of the release. This argument is based on the assertion that the parents only intended to release claims held directly by them as a result of Gregory's death and not those claims which devolved upon them by intestate succession. The court of appeals rejected this contention based on the sweeping language of the release. Although we have agreed fully with the court of appeals' determination concerning the authority of Jaron and Ruth to settle this wrongful death claim and the attendant claim for underinsured motorist coverage, we do not agree that the language of the release is so clear that its meaning can be decided now as a matter of law. The release was executed on a printed form which only required completion with respect to the amount of consideration, the named insured and policy number, the name of the person who sustained bodily injury, and the date of the accident. An argument can be made that, if Allstate had been effecting a release of claims arising from Gregory's death which were personal to the parents and which did not devolve upon them by intestate succession, it would have worded the release in exactly the same manner as was done here. Allstate contends that any uncertainty with respect to what claims were being released evaporates in light of the fact that Iowa law does not recognize parental recovery for loss of services or support on the death of an adult child. See Ruden v. Parker, 462 N.W.2d 674, 675 (Iowa 1990). If the parents had no claim arising from Gregory's death except that which devolved upon them by intestate succession, this is indeed a strong argument for interpreting the release as embracing the entire gamut of wrongful death damages. On the other hand, claims which in fact have no basis in law may nevertheless be asserted and settled. Given the contrasting possibilities which are presented by the circumstances, we conclude that the proper interpretation of the release in the present case presents an issue of fact rather than an issue of law. Relevant to this conclusion is the Reporter's Note on contract interpretation accompanying comment a of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 212 (1979). That note states: [T]he proposition that a party's external manifestations must prevail over his private and unexpressed meaning [is expressed in some cases]. Cases making a bald objective-subjective distinction often refuse to go further unless an ambiguity is facially apparent.... This approach is deemed simplistic, for the reason stated in this Comment and Comment b. The comment a which is referred to suggests that the operative meaning of a contract is to be found in the transaction and its context. Comment b provides that: It is sometimes said that extrinsic evidence cannot change the plain meaning of a writing, but meaning can almost never be plain except in a context. Accordingly, the rule stated in Subsection (1) is not limited to cases where it is determined that the language used is ambiguous. Any determination of meaning or ambiguity should only be made in the light of the relevant evidence of the situation and relations of the parties, the subject matter of the transaction, preliminary negotiations and statements made therein, usages of trade, and the course of dealing between the parties. We approved these principles of interpretation in First National Bank v. Creston Implement Co., 340 N.W.2d 777, 781 (Iowa 1983). We affirm that portion of the court of appeals decision upholding the authority of Jaron and Ruth to settle all claims arising from Gregory's death. We vacate that court's decision to the extent that it directs that summary judgment be entered in favor of Allstate at this time. We reverse that portion of the district court's decision (on summary judgment and adjudication of law points) which concluded that only Gregory's personal representative could execute a valid release of Gregory's claims against Allstate which survived his death. Notwithstanding this disagreement with the district court's reasoning, we affirm its denial of Allstate's motion for summary judgment. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. All costs of appeal are assessed against the appellee. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.