Opinion ID: 798345
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Montana Law and Contract Interpretation

Text: Like the district court before us, we apply Montana law to the parties' dispute, in accordance with the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, here Texas. [14] The parties do not dispute that Montana substantive law applies to this case. In Montana, a court must interpret a contract to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. [15] When, as in here, the contract is in writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone if possible. [16] Moreover, if [t]he language of a contract is . . . clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity, the language governs the interpretation of the contract. [17] Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is a question of law that must be determined on an objective basis. [18] Contractual language is unambiguous if it is  reasonably susceptible to only one construction. [19] When that is the case, it is the duty of the court . . . to apply the language as written. [20] Conversely, contractual language is ambiguous only if the language is susceptible to at least two reasonable but conflicting meanings. [21] Only if the contractual language is determined to be ambiguous must a factual determination . . . be made as to the parties' intent in entering into the contract. [22] Thus, under Montana law, two sequential questions must be answered to test for ambiguity: First, whether two or more different meanings or interpretations have been proffered by the opposing proponents; second, if so, whether at least two of the proffered meanings or interpretations is reasonable. In determining the meaning of a contract's language, the court view[s] the contract as a whole so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other. [23] The court will not isolate tracts, clauses, or words, but rather . . . grasp[s] the instrument by its four corners and in the light of the entire instrument . . . ascertain the parties' intent. [24] With these principles of Montana law in mind, we turn to the contractual language here in dispute.