Opinion ID: 2976166
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The other sentences of CO #9

Text: CO #9’s remaining sentences also fail to support the County’s argument. As already discussed in Part II.A.1. above, the Claim is not a CCP and therefore was not settled under sentence four. This only leaves the possibility that it was settled by sentences one or two. Both sentences are similar in that they provide for a full and final waiver of claims with respect to any and all claims, --18-- No. 07-3251 Steel Service Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners demands, and causes of action that Steel Service has arising out of “the Changes.” The word “Changes” is not defined by the Contract, but in context seems to refer only to the changes listed in CO #9. We reach this conclusion because the identical language is found in COs #3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, and those COs clearly did not settle CO #1. Moreover, any inference that CO #9 was intended to settle Steel Service’s Claim is undermined by the fact that the parties continued their efforts to mediate the Claim even after CO #9 was executed. In sum, Steel Service’s Claim arose out of Hunt’s instruction to employ Extraordinary Measures, and did not arise out of any CCPs listed in CO #9. Steel Service’s Claim was accordingly not settled by CO #9, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the County on that basis.