Opinion ID: 2600437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Addendum Is Ambiguous.

Text: When interpreting a contract, our duty is to ascertain and give effect to the reasonable intentions of the contracting parties. [15] We determine the parties' reasonable intentions by resort[ing] to the language of the disputed provision and other provisions, relevant extrinsic evidence, and case law interpreting similar provisions. [16] It is not necessary to find that an agreement is ambiguous before looking to extrinsic evidence as an aid in determining what it means. [17] Both parties presented extrinsic evidence to aid in interpreting the addendum. We have held that [i]nterpreting a written contract is generally a task for the trial court; however, interpretation becomes a task for the trier of fact when the parties present extrinsic evidence to clarify a contract's meaning, when this evidence points toward conflicting interpretations of the contract, and when the contract itself is reasonably susceptible of either meaning. In such cases, the trial court initially determines whether the extrinsic evidence meets the criteria to create a jury question; when the court finds that the extrinsic evidence does not conflict or is incompatible with the terms of the written contract, interpretation remains a question of law for the court's determination.[ [18] ] The 1989 addendum states that Maw will retain all rights of ownership and effect associated with the . . . Permit, to claims, settlements, and/or benefits resulting from the March 1989 Exxon oil spill, against the vessel Exxon Valdez, and the 1987 Glacier Bay oil spill. The estate argues that this language was designed to ensure that the transfer of the permit did not carry with it the claims for losses that Maw had suffered as a result of the oil spills. Maw, on the other hand, contends that the language was meant to assign to him future damages that Polushkin might suffer as a result of the spills. The language of the addendum conceivably could support the interpretation of either party. On the one hand, the verb retain suggests that only claims that Maw had at the time of transfer were the subject of the transaction. He could hardly retain claims for damages that Polushkin might suffer in the future though Polushkin might assign those claims to him. On the other hand, the all rights language with no explicit time cut-off could suggest that an assignment of future claims was intended. The language of the addendum is therefore ambiguous. Rules in aid of contract interpretation must be employed in an effort to determine its meaning.