Court Opinion

ID: 9754945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:19:20.151457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:01.109253
License: Public Domain

Bruns, J.,
concurring: I agree with my colleagues regarding the interpretation of the settlement and release agreement entered into by the parties in March 2006.1 also agree that this case should *521be remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate amount of damages. In reaching this decision, however, I would simply rely upon the plain and unambiguous language of the contract.
This case involves a negotiated settlement and release between experienced parties (a public utility company and its former general manager) who were represented by legal counsel. See Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc., 217 Kan. 88, 95, 535 P.2d 419 (1975) (“None of the parties here involved were neophytes or babes in the brambles of the business world.”). Accordingly, I do not believe we have sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the settlement and release agreement should be strictly construed against BPU, nor do I believe we need to reach this issue.
The common definition of the word “benefit” is “an advantage.” American Heritage Dictionary 168 (4th ed. 2006). Because BPU’s payments to the pension plan were not accepted and BPU kept the money that was returned by the pension plan, Daggett did not receive the advantage or benefit of the bargain. Thus, it is not necessary to apply rules of construction in this case. See Carrothers Constr. Co. v. City of South Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 751, 207 P.3d 231 (2009) (If the contract’s terms are clear, the parties’ intent is to be determined from the contract language without applying rules of construction.).