Srch

MEMORANDUM **

Terri L. Srch appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant 3M Company. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Under Minnesota law, “the primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.” Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Minn. *950 2003). “Where the parties express their intent in unambiguous words, those words are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. The intent of the parties should not be ascertained from the words of the contract viewed in isolation, “ ‘but rather from a process of synthesis in which the words and phrases are given a meaning in accordance with the obvious purpose of the contract ... as a whole.’ ” Id. (quoting Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Lorraine Realty Corp., 279 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn.1979)).

A contract is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Current Tech. Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enters., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn.1995). “If a contract is ambiguous, it must be construed against its…