Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Association

907 P.2d 264 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In March 1988, P contracted with D to purchase three types of fertilizer and the herbicide Treflan. D agreed to apply the fertilizers and Treflan to P's nineteen-acre field of safflower. On March 25, 1988, D sprayed P's safflower field. Prior to the work on P's field, D had used the sprayer apparatus to apply Velpar L, a powerful herbicide, to another field. D did not properly clean the sprayer tank. P’s crop died and D repeatedly assured P that D 'would take care' of him. D told P they would spray the field to neutralize the Velpar L. D never did that and later asserted, to P that the potential harm was so slight that it didn't justify the cost of neutralization. P and D entered into settlement negotiations. P and D signed a release agreement that stated: P hereby agrees to release and hold harmless D for any and all damages caused by the spraying of my approximate nineteen acres of safflower. P originally refused to sign the release because he was concerned about the lingering effects of the Velpar L on the beans which would be planted in the field the following spring. D told P not to worry because they were sure there would be no problem. They further indicated that if a problem arose, they would address it at that time. P claimed that D indicated that 'they had to settle one year at a time; so, we needed to reach a settlement on the safflower.' The Du Pont representative Robert M. Jencks told P that if he were P, 'he would go ahead and plant beans in the field.' D signed the release on November 28, 1988. P planted beans and they died. D said it was their problem. D refused to compensate P for the beans. P sued D. D moved for summary judgment. P contends that the release agreement was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence demonstrated that it applied only to the damage to the safflower crop. The district court held that the release agreement unambiguously released D from all claims for future damages. P appealed.