Court Opinion

ID: 9745367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:51:47.669724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:59.410554
License: Public Domain

WALKER, J.
I concur, but write separately to clarify a point addressed by the majority. While concluding, correctly, that a party’s subjective intent cannot create a triable issue of material fact regarding a contract’s objectively reasonable meaning, the majority suggests that such evidence is nonetheless admissible. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 350-351, 352.) I believe that such evidence is not only insufficient to create a triable issue, but is irrelevant as proof of the party’s contractual intent, and therefore inadmissible. (See Zurich General Acc. & Liability Assur. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1933) 132 Cal.App. 101, 104 [22 P.2d 572] [mutual assent understood from the reasonable meaning ascribed to the parties’ words and acts, and not from their unexpressed,, secret intentions or understandings].) Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1984) 36 Cal.3d 426 [204 Cal.Rptr. 435, 682 P.2d 1100], cited by the majority for the contrary proposition, concerned the application of the parol evidence rule and did not consider the relevancy of evidence regarding the contracting parties’ subjective intent.