Dial Temporary Help Service, Inc. v. DLF International Seeds, Inc.
298 P.3d 1234
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of our Dial Temporary Help Service v. DLF Int’l Seeds decision.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s contract claim, arguing ambiguity or construction in defendant’s favor because plaintiff drafted the contract.
- Plaintiff contends summary judgment may resolve disputes if contract terms are unambiguous; relies on Brown v. American Property Management.
- Plaintiff, however, did not offer extrinsic evidence bearing on the intended meaning of the disputed provision.
- We held we may affirm a summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- We discuss Madson v. Oregon Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists and Yogman v. Parrott to distinguish when ambiguity defeats summary judgment and when exceptions apply, and we reaffirm the result in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contract ambiguity defeats summary judgment | Dial rule: ambiguity requires remand for factual meaning | If ambiguous, construct against plaintiff; extrinsic evidence needed | Ambiguity alone not fatal to summary judgment; analysis requires extrinsic evidence and standards |
| Whether extrinsic evidence was required to resolve the disputed meaning | No extrinsic evidence necessary if terms unambiguous | Extrinsic evidence required to resolve meaning when ambiguity exists | Extrinsic evidence needed; plaintiff failed to meet burden to show triable issue |
| applicability of Yogman exception to resolve ambiguity on summary judgment | Yogman supports resolving ambiguity on summary judgment when no further evidence exists | Here, the parties offered competing extrinsic evidence; exception not applicable | Yogman exception not met; disputed evidence exists, so summary judgment not compelled by Yogman |
| Whether Madson's framework applies to remand or judgment as a matter of law | Ambiguity creates triable issue; should remand for fact-finding | Because plaintiff failed to present triable issue, judgment as a matter of law proper | Madson does not mandate remand here; since plaintiff failed to present sufficient extrinsic evidence, judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dial Temporary Help Service v. DLF Int’l Seeds, 252 Or App 376 (2012) (appeal on contract meaning and summary judgment principles)
- Brown v. American Property Management, 167 Or App 53 (2000) (summary judgment/dispute over contract meaning)
- Madson v. Oregon Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 209 Or App 380 (2006) (ambiguity as fact issue; remand when triable issue exists)
- Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358 (1997) (ambiguous contract term; exception when no extrinsic evidence exists)
- Abell v. Shelton, 224 Or App 259 (2008) (extrinsic evidence and meaning of contract provisions)
- Worman v. Columbia County, 223 Or App 223 (2008) (extrinsic evidence and contract interpretation principles)
- Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404 (1997) (summary judgment standard and adverse-favorable inference framework)