AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves Plaintiffs-Appellants Lonnie D. Clark and Karla Rolen Clark who filed a lawsuit against Defendant-Appellee Affinity Road and Travel Club, Inc. (Affinity). The dispute centers around the enforcement of contract terms that the Plaintiffs argued should not have been enforced due to their contention that these terms were contained in a document which altered previous terms and that they were unaware of this material.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the reliance on Espinosa v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. was misplaced as this case was not an insurance dispute. They contended that the contract terms should not have been enforced because they were contained in a document that altered previous terms, and they were unaware of these changes.
• Defendant-Appellee (Affinity): Argued for the enforcement of the contract terms as written, asserting that the contract language was clear and unambiguous and therefore should be enforced according to its terms.

Legal Issues

• Whether the reliance on Espinosa v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. was appropriate in interpreting the contract law principles applicable to this case.
• Whether the contract terms should have been enforced despite the Plaintiffs' claims that they were unaware of the material changes to the contract terms.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Affinity Road and Travel Club, Inc.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The court found that the principles of contract law applied to this case were correctly interpreted, citing Espinosa v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. for general principles of contract law applicable outside the insurance litigation context. The court held that unambiguous contract language should be enforced as written, dismissing the Plaintiffs' argument that they were unaware of the contract terms due to not having seen the brochure. The court noted that the Plaintiffs did not adequately preserve their argument for appeal by failing to raise it at the district court level, thus affirming the summary judgment awarded to Affinity.