Court Opinion

ID: 9657182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:17:03.057357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:41.965571
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
concurring.
Although saddened by the result, I am compehed by the law to concur with the majority. Kentucky law is quite clear about the interpretation of contracts. If the contract is unambiguous, you stay within the four corners of the document to determine its meaning. 3D Enterprises Contracting Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County, 174 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Ky. 2005). That is “doubly true” when you are interpreting its legal meaning. Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Comp., 94 S.W.3d 381, 384-5 (Ky.2000).
Here, the document was not vague. It specifically noted that, “all other persons, firms or corporations liable, or who might be claimed to be liable,” were to be released. The language is clear and unambiguous and is nearly identical with standard language used in releases all across the country. It was titled “RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS” and above the signature line, boldly stated, “CAUTION: THIS IS A RELEASE AND YOU ARE MAKING A FINAL SETTLEMENT. READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING.”
That being said, this case should be held up as a “poster child” for people who desire to negotiate releases or agreements without an attorney. But, to change the law just to save the Appellant, would undo hundreds, if not thousands, of otherwise valid general releases that are rightfully used on a daily basis across this state.
For these reasons, I cannot support the “specific identity” or the “general intent” *706rules, as either would essentially destroy all general releases.
LAMBERT, C.J., joins this concurring opinion.