Opinion ID: 2640085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: determination of integration

Text: ¶22 Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Daines, we agree with the trial court's finding that the Release is an integrated agreement. Consistent with our line of contract analysis cases, we first determine whether or not the Release constitutes an integrated agreement before considering whether the evidence offered by Daines supports a finding of facial ambiguity. Hall v. Process Instruments & Control, Inc., 890 P.2d 1024, 1026, 1027 (Utah 1995), overruled on other grounds by Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren, 2008 UT 20, 182 P.3d 326. We have held that an integrated agreement is a writing or writings constituting a final expression of one or more terms of an agreement. Tangren Family Trust v. Tangren, 2008 UT 20, ¶ 12, 182 P.3d 326 (quoting Hall, 890 P.2d at 1027). Additionally, we recently held in Tangren that [e]xtrinsic evidence . . . is not admissible on the question of integration where the contract at issue contains a clear integration clause. 2008 UT 20, ¶ 19. Thus, a contract is integrated if it contains a clear integration clause. Id. ¶23 Daines argues that the Release is not integrated because it does not contain a real integration clause stating that the document covers the entire agreement between the parties. We disagree. The Release states: This release encompasses and satisfies any prior agreements and discussions whether written or verbal by West Valley Surgical Center, LLC or any of its members. The language indicating that the Release satisfies any prior agreements and discussions whether written or oral satisfies the clear integration clause standard articulated in Tangren. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the Release constitutes an integrated agreement.