Opinion ID: 5120221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Settlement Agreement and Release.

Text: In matters of contract, words are the signposts that the contracting parties use to demarcate the boundaries of their agreement. Consequently, we begin with the text of the release provision contained within the settlement agreement. Under Massachusetts law, the interpretation of a contractual provision is a question of law for the court. See NTV Mgmt., Inc. v. Lightship Glob. Ventures, LLC, 140 N.E.3d 436, 443 (Mass. 2020); see also Bank v. Thermo Elemental Inc., 888 N.E.2d 897, 907 (Mass. 2008). Contract language is ambiguous where the phraseology can support a reasonable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words employed and the obligations undertaken. Bank, 888 N.E.2d at 907 (quotations omitted). [T]he parties' intent must be gathered from a fair construction of the contract as a whole and not by special emphasis upon any one part. Bukuras v. Mueller Grp., LLC, 592 F.3d 255, 262 (1st Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted) (applying Massachusetts law). Words that are plain and free from ambiguity must be understood in their usual and ordinary sense, and a contract should be interpreted in a reasonable and practical way, consistent with its language, - 9 - background, and purpose. Id. (quotations omitted). [A]bsent ambiguous provisions, we look solely to the language of the contract and do not consider extrinsic evidence. NTV Mgmt., 140 N.E.3d at 443. The principal release provision — section 3.1 of the settlement agreement — sweeps broadly. In it, the Hospitals agreed to: release, waive, forever discharge, and hold harmless [Esoterix] . . . of, from, and with respect to, any and all liabilities, losses, damages, charges, complaints, claims, counterclaims, obligations, promises, agreements, controversies, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, demands, costs, debts and expenses . . . of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected that may have arisen before the Effective Date . . . relating to or arising from . . . the [License], including but not limited to . . . the payment of any past royalties or other fees pursuant to the [License] . . . . By these terms, the parties manifestly intended to enter into a release with many attributes of a general release — a release that broadly discharges liability for all claims and demands, whether known or unknown. See Eck v. Godbout, 831 N.E.2d 296, 300-01 (Mass. 2005). The release is meaningfully limited in only two ways. First, the release is limited temporally: it applies to any matter that may have arisen before its effective date. Second, the subject of the release is limited: the matter released must - 10 - relat[e] to or aris[e] from one of the release's enumerated topics (a taxonomy that includes the License). Read in light of the settlement agreement as a whole, the release is unambiguous. The adjacent release provision — section 3.2 — releases obligations related to the QIAGEN litigation (the underlying incident that prompted the settlement agreement). The existence of this second (tailored) release provision confirms that a broader release was part and parcel of the parties' bargained-for settlement. See, e.g., Cohen v. Steve's Franchise Co., 927 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining that, under Massachusetts law, [a] reading rendering contract language meaningless is to be avoided); Oliveira v. Com. Ins. Co., 112 N.E.3d 1206, 1210 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). It is commonplace that a release may be prompted by the settlement of a specific dispute or resolution of a specific issue, and yet the parties may choose to negotiate a general release that operates to settle all other, unrelated matters. Eck, 831 N.E.2d at 300-01. The release has two meaningful limitations, but it nonetheless operates to extinguish many matters beyond those stemming from the QIAGEN litigation.