CONTRACT-CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
EMPLOYED BY COURTS WHEN ANALYZING CONTRACT PROVISIONS
"The construction of an unambiguous
contract is a question of law for the court," which we review de novo.
Tawes v. Barnes, 340 S.W.3d 419, 425 (Tex. 2011). "A contract is not
ambiguous simply because the parties disagree over its meaning." Dynegy
Midstream Servs., Ltd. P'ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164, 168 (Tex. 2009).
Rather, a contract is ambiguous only when "its meaning is uncertain and
doubtful or is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation."
Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). "When
discerning the contracting parties' intent, courts must examine the entire
agreement and give effect to each provision so that none is rendered
meaningless." Tawes, 340 S.W.3d at 425.
When performing this review, no single provision will be given controlling effect; instead, all of the provisions must be considered in light of the whole agreement. Id. "In construing a written contract, the primary concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument." Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 662 (Tex. 2005). Accordingly, we "give contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning unless the instrument indicates the parties intended a different meaning." Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d at 168.
When performing this review, no single provision will be given controlling effect; instead, all of the provisions must be considered in light of the whole agreement. Id. "In construing a written contract, the primary concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument." Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 662 (Tex. 2005). Accordingly, we "give contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning unless the instrument indicates the parties intended a different meaning." Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d at 168.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL
The construction of a contract is a
question of law that we review de novo in light of the entire agreement. See
Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 248, 252-53
(Tex. 2009).
Contract construction is a question that
we review de novo, and when performing that task, we review the entire
contract. See Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc., 297 S.W.3d at 252-53.
SOURCE: AUSTIN COURT OF APPEALS -
03-10-00784-CV - 01/4/2013
The interpretation or construction of an
unambiguous contract is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Am.
Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. 2003). When
interpreting a contract, our primary concern is to ascertain and give effect to
the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement. Seagull Energy E &
P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex.2006). To discern this
intent, we examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize
and give effect to all of its provisions so that none will be rendered
meaningless. Id. No single provision taken alone will be given controlling
effect; rather, all the provisions must be considered with reference to the
whole instrument. Id. Interpretation of an insurance policy is governed by the
same rules of construction applicable to other contracts. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995).
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - Nos.
14-10-00821-CV, 14-10-00856-CV, 14-10-01145-CV – 5/17/12 375 - Garcia v. Bank of America Corporation, 375 S.W.3d
322 (2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment