## Facts

- Bryce Hepper was seriously injured on July 25, 1993, when a car driven by Mera Merz left the roadway and rolled over in Adams County, North Dakota.
- Hepper incurred substantial medical expenses and alleged continuing future medical needs.
- Hepper settled with Merz’s insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, and signed a written general release as part of that settlement.
- The release discharged Merz and also “all other persons and organizations who are or might be liable” for all present and future claims arising from the accident.
- After executing the release, Hepper sued Adams County in federal court, alleging the County negligently signed and striped the road and that those defects contributed to the crash.
- Adams County did not participate in the earlier settlement but asserted it was covered by the release’s “all other persons” language.

## Issues

1. Whether the release’s language discharging “all other persons and organizations who are or might be liable” unambiguously released Adams County and barred Hepper’s negligence claim under North Dakota law.
2. Whether parol evidence of the settlement parties’ alleged contrary intent was admissible to limit the release’s scope.
3. Whether the County was alternatively protected by discretionary-function immunity under North Dakota law (raised but not reached if the release was dispositive).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Adams County.
- The court held the release was unambiguous and, by its terms, extended to any potential tortfeasor alleged to be liable for the accident, including the County.
- Because the release was unambiguous, parol evidence offered to show the parties did not intend to release the County was inadmissible.
- The court did not decide the County’s discretionary-function immunity defense because the release independently barred the claim.
- A dissent would have treated the release as ambiguous as applied to a non-participating third party or would have allowed extrinsic evidence of intent.

## Legal Principles

- Under North Dakota law, when a written release is clear and unambiguous, its meaning is determined from the document’s text and enforced according to its plain language.
- A general release that expressly covers “all other persons and organizations who are or might be liable” can discharge claims against non-signatory third parties arising from the same occurrence.
- Ambiguity exists only if reasonable persons could differ on the contract’s meaning; dissatisfaction with the consequences does not create ambiguity.
- When a contract is unambiguous, parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary its terms.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a broadly worded general release as written, holding it barred the plaintiff’s later negligence action against a county that did not participate in the settlement, and it refused to consider extrinsic evidence to narrow the release’s scope.


Hepper v. Adams Cnty., 133 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 1998)