Opinion ID: 1198872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Parol Evidence as to Wisconsin Energy's Policy

Text: First, the parties dispute whether or not parol evidence can come in to explain Wisconsin [Energy's] policy in place regarding reference checks at the time. Matthews says that certain statements made in the course of settling the 2003 case should prove the substance of these policies. So read, Matthews argues, Wisconsin Energy violated the terms of the agreement based on English's conversation with Schwartz as well as through the substance of its responses to FMS and Midwest Airlines. In opposition, Wisconsin Energy argues that the terms of the agreement and the integration clause are plain, thus precluding reliance on parol evidence. We agree with Wisconsin Energy that parol evidence cannot come in to prove the terms of Wisconsin Energy's policy ... regarding reference checks. Before courts go beyond the written terms of the contract, Wisconsin law requires there to be some ambiguity. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 69 Wis.2d at 237-38, 230 N.W.2d 736. And ambiguity arises when a term is fairly susceptible of more than one construction. Mgmt Computer Svces, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 206 Wis.2d 158, 177, 557 N.W.2d 67 (Wis.1996). Here, there is no ambiguity with respect to Wisconsin Energy's policy covering reference checks. The relevant portion provides Wisconsin [Energy] agrees to respond to any request for a reference regarding Matthews in a manner that is consistent with the Wisconsin [Energy] policy in place regarding reference checks at the time. With respect to the reference obligations, the parties' intentions are clear: Wisconsin Energy must provide Matthews a reference that comports with its policy in place regarding reference checks at the time whatever that may be. This provision clearly and expressly incorporates Wisconsin Energy's reference policies. Schilling by Foy v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 212 Wis.2d 878, 888-89, 569 N.W.2d 776 (Wis. App.1997). And terms incorporated by reference within the contract (but which the contract does not go on to define) do not create an ambiguity. Instead, as long as the extrinsic terms are clearly identifiable, the parties agree to abide by those terms just as they agree to the other terms in the contract. Mack v. Joint School Dist., No. 3 et al., 92 Wis.2d 476, 492, 285 N.W.2d 604 (Wis.1979); Barrons v. J.H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., 89 Wis.2d 444, 452, 278 N.W.2d 827 (Wis.1979). Thus, evidence of these extrinsic terms is certainly admissible because the parties expressly agreed to them. But the contract's incorporation of Wisconsin Energy's reference policy does not create an ambiguity that allows parol evidence  like English's statements in open court  to come in. See generally 11 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 30:25 (4th ed.2008). In the end, this dispute is of no real moment; Wisconsin Energy's description of its reference policy on appeal parrots that offered by English in 2003. That policy, in place from at least December 2003, provides first that a human resources service desk representative handles the initial reference request. If the request is merely confirming employment information, no release is needed. But if the request asks for more involved information, the request must include a release. At this point, the representative accesses the employment databases and responds to the request. The substance of this response would only include the dates of employment, final salary, and the title of the last position held. This last part constitutes the sweep of English's statement before the court that Matthews seeks to admit as parol evidence.