## Facts

- Earl Ward, an Idaho farmer, contracted at Intermountain Farmers Association’s Utah location to buy fertilizer and the herbicide Treflan and to have IFA apply them to Ward’s nineteen-acre safflower field in Idaho.
- An IFA employee sprayed Ward’s field after previously using the same sprayer to apply Velpar L to another field and failed to properly clean the tank, contaminating Ward’s application.
- Ward’s safflower began dying; IFA representatives repeatedly assured Ward it would “take care” of him.
- Testing indicated the injury was consistent with exposure to Velpar L; IFA initially discussed neutralizing the herbicide but later declined.
- The parties settled for $4,901.27, and Ward signed a written release discharging IFA from “any and all damages caused by the spraying of [Ward’s] approximate nineteen (19) acres of safflower.”
- In 1989, Ward planted beans in the same field; the beans withered and died. IFA refused to pay for this later loss.
- Ward sued in Utah district court, pleading breach of contract based on IFA’s improper performance and subsequent refusal to remedy the consequences.

## Issues

1. Whether Ward’s breach-of-contract action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
2. Whether the release unambiguously barred claims for later crop losses allegedly caused by the 1988 spraying, or whether ambiguity permitted extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for IFA and remanded.
- The court held the action was not barred as a matter of law at the summary-judgment stage.
- The court held the release was ambiguous because the phrase “of safflower” could reasonably limit the release to damage to the 1988 safflower crop rather than all future damages linked to the spraying.
- Because of the ambiguity, extrinsic evidence of negotiations and assurances was admissible to determine the intended scope of the release, creating fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A claim based on misperformance of a service promised in an agreement may be treated as a breach-of-contract action for limitations analysis.
- A release that uses broad language (“any and all damages”) may still be ambiguous when modified by qualifying terms, requiring interpretation of the agreement as a whole.
- Under Utah’s parol-evidence rule, extrinsic evidence may be admitted to interpret or clarify ambiguous contract language, including ambiguous release terms.
- Summary judgment is improper when contractual language is ambiguous and the parties’ intent turns on disputed extrinsic evidence or other genuine issues of material fact.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that Ward’s contract claim could not be dismissed on limitations grounds at summary judgment and that the release’s “of safflower” language was ambiguous, permitting extrinsic evidence to determine whether the parties intended to release only the 1988 safflower losses or also later crop losses allegedly caused by the same spraying.


Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass’n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995)