Nor may the district court's decision be upheld on the ground of deference to Edison's interpretation of the trust. We conclude that "t the time made its summary judgment ruling, it did not have all the necessary information before it, and the information it did have was not such as would support an award in favor of the Employer." Id.and such conduct is to be given great weight.'" Arizona Laborers, 753 F.2d at 1518 (citing Laborers Health Welfare, 707 F.2d at 418 (citations omitted emphasis added)) accord Pierce County, 827 F.2d at 1327. It may also consider the parties' conduct subsequent to contract formation. "In ascertaining the intent of the parties to a collective bargaining agreement, `the trier of fact may look to the circumstances surrounding the contract's execution, including the preceding negotiations. This circuit has noted that this general principle of contract law applies with even greater liberality in disputes regarding collective bargaining agreements. See generally 3 Corbin on Contracts ยง 536, at 27-28 (1960). See, e.g., Pierce County Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Health Trust v. The court should look to parol evidence to determine what the parties intended the conflicting provisions to mean. Arizona Laborers, 753 F.2d at 1517-18 (citing Laborers Health Welfare, 707 F.2d at 418). When the meaning of an agreement is ambiguous on its face and contrary inferences as to intent are possible, an issue of material fact exists for which summary judgment ordinarily is inappropriate.
The contract is ambiguous on its face and appellant's reading of the contract is reasonable, precluding summary judgment. The court should not defer to Edison's interpretation of the contract.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the grounds that the contract explicitly permitted Edison to withhold the benefits as it did, and that the district court must defer to Edison's interpretation of the contract unless that interpretation was arbitrary and capricious. Appellant sued Edison for breach of contract, seeking to recover benefits wrongfully withheld under a health care plan negotiated by the parties and administered by appellee.