Opinion ID: 59587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contract Construction Principles

Text: The district court based its decision on its interpretation of the Agreement. We review the interpretation of a contract de novo, as it involves a legal question. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Brantley Trucking, Inc., 220 F.3d 679, 681 (5th Cir. 2000).7 In construing a contract, such as the Agreement, our goal is to give effect to the intentions of the parties. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc. v. Enron Can. Corp., 349 F.3d 816, 822 (5th Cir. 2003); Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. 2006). To that end, we look first to the language of the Agreement. See Reliant Energy, 349 F.3d at 822; SAS Inst., Inc. v. Breitenfeld, 167 S.W.3d 840, 841 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). “When a contract is expressed in unambiguous language, its terms will be given their plain meaning and will be enforced as written.” Reliant Energy, 349 F.3d at 822; see also SAS Inst., 167 S.W.3d at 841. A contract is ambiguous, and thus not subject to interpretation as a matter of law, only if the language is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. See Reliant Energy, 349 F.3d at 821-22; Seagull Energy, 207 S.W.3d at 345. In determining ambiguity, we examine the entire contract in order to harmonize and give effect to all of its provisions so that none are rendered meaningless. Seagull Energy, 207 S.W.3d at 345; see also Transitional Learning Cmty. at Galveston, Inc. v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 220 F.3d 427, 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[A] contract should be interpreted as to give 7 The parties use both federal and Texas state law to interpret the Agreement. See Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F.3d 930, 935 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that the release of federal claims is covered by federal law). As discussed herein, federal law and Texas law are essentially identical for purposes of interpreting the Agreement in this case. 8 No. 06-20624 meaning to all of its terms—presuming that every provision was intended to accomplish some purpose, and that none are deemed superfluous.”). With respect to the release of claims, Texas law provides that “any claims not clearly within the subject matter of the release are not discharged.” Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Tex. 1991). To be effective, the release must “mention” the claim being released. Id. “It is not necessary, however, for the parties to anticipate and explicitly identify every potential cause of action relating to the subject matter of the release.” Stafford v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 175 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.).