Court Opinion

ID: 9544315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:31.92156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:40.996715
License: Public Domain

*1083HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion; however, I cannot agree with part I1 of the opinion. The majority opinion finds that "[t)he language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, so it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning." Huntington Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walker, (1979) Ind.App., 392 N.E.2d 1182 (trans. denied). With this statement I agree and therefore parol evidence to vary the term of the contract is not permissible. It was error for the trial court to permit the parol evidence. If the parol evidence was admissible, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The parol evidence would support the award of only $10,000 in damages.