Rempel
Rempel v. United Parcel Service General Service Co.
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Ferguson, J.
dissenting.
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge.
I respectfully dissent because this case is inappropriate for summary judgment. The meaning of the disputed contract term should be decided at trial.
Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358 , 937 P.2d 1019 (1997), outlines the analytical steps courts must take to interpret disputed contract provisions. The first step is an examination of the document on its face. Id. at 1021. If the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, a court’s analysis ends and summary judgment is appropriate. Id.
A contract is ambiguous under Oregon law when the provision at issue “is capable of more than one sensible and reasonable interpretation.” Deerfield Commodities v. Nerco, Inc., 72 Or.App. 305 , 696 P.2d 1096, 1104-05 (1985). Dr. Rempel suggests that the agreement at issue in this case prohibited public disclosure of only confidential information; UPS proposes that the contract prohibited disclosure of all data resulting from inspection of UPS’s devices, regardless of whether the information derived was confidential. I cannot say that either of these is an unreasonable interpretation of the terms of the agreement.
The majority suggests that Dr. Rempel’s…
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Appellant David Rempel, M.D., M.P.H. (“Rempel”), challenges the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
The disputed provision of the confidentiality agreement provides in pertinent part:
In determining whether or not a contract is ambiguous under Oregon law, we must consider the contract in its entirety, giving effect to each provision. See In re Watson, 149 Or.App. 598, 604 , 945 P.2d 522 (1997). No interpretation should be adopted that renders any provision of the contract superfluous. See Guthrie v. State *130 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 269 Or. 14, 21-22 , 522 P.2d 896 (1974) (rejecting contract construction that rendered a provision superfluous).
The interpretation advanced by Rempel, that this provision prohibited disclosure of only confidential information, and not the publicly disclosed inspection results, renders the final sentence of the provision superfluous in contravention of Oregon law. See id.; see also In re Watson, 149 Or.App. at 604 , 945 P.2d 522 . If the parties intended the disclosure provision to cover only confidential information, there would have been no need to include the last sentence addressing the…