Cited by

Co., 158 n.9 (1993); ELM Ret.

Co., 3 LANE v. STATESMAN Decision of the Court citation omitted), and we construe provisions “‘according to their plain and ordinary meaning’ .

Co., –59 (1993) (“Whether contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation .

Co., (noting that a contracting party's subsequent conduct may inform what the parties intended).

Co. , , 158-59, , 1144-45 (1993) ("Whether contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation so that extrinsic evidence is admissible is a question of law for the court.").

A. Extrinsic Evidence ¶14 Plaintiffs next argue the superior court “erred in refusing to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties.” they argue the superior court was required to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.

Co. , , 154, , 1140 (1993).

Co. , , 152, , 1138 (1993).

Co., (“Generally, and in Arizona, a court will attempt to enforce a contract according to the parties’ intent.”).