Adbar Case Analysis

The Court’s response first addressed the issue of a jurisprudential domain. Through Adbar Co., L.C. v. PCAA Missouri, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 776, 2008 WL 68858 at *4 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 4, 2008), the Court established control over the superseding domain the Court established the rule for the interpretation of contracts fell within the purview of law. Furthermore, when reading a contract, “uses "the plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of the contract's words" and considers the document."
Adbar, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 776, 2008 WL 68858, at *4 (citing Jackson County v. McClain Enters., 190 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Mo.Ct.App.2006)), while the guiding principle for interpretation should focus on, is "to find out the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intent." Monarch Fire Protection District of

(quoting State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853, 860 (Mo.2006)).

From the instructions derived, the Court concludes from the contract:
“After careful review of the parties' Agreement as a whole, and following the well-established principles of contract interpretation, the Court finds the exception for "third-party fees" and "fees, fines, and penalties" was not intended to apply to liability for issuer losses assessed by the Associations.” The Court justifies the decision the decision based on the explicit exclusionary limitations combined with specific references to penalties. It was concluded that the company had the ability to specifically exclude products from exclusion, and therefore if the company interned to exclude “third party fees” and “fees, fines and penalties” from the exclusionary law, they held the responsibility to do so. See New Madrid County Reorganized School Dist. No. 1 v. Continental Cas. Co., 904 F.2d 1236, 1240-41 (8th Cir. 1990) ("If Continental Casualty wanted to exclude this type of liability from its policy it could and should have done so explicitly. Absent an explicit exclusion, we must apply the language as