Winamaki v. Umpqua Bank

“A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of contract formation, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.” Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 262 Or App 273, 277, (2014).

Plaintiff brought the action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Plaintiff challenges Umpqua Bank’s practice of assessing multiple nonsufficient funds (NSF) or overdraft fees on the same small-dollar electronic payments or checks. Plaintiff argued that the trial court misconstrued the checking-account agreement. “A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of contract formation, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.” Adair Homes, Inc.  v.  Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 262 Or App 273, 277, (2014). The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff was misunderstanding the contract and that the contract did explicitly define what an “item” is considered to be. The Court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that the account agreement is unambiguous and that it authorized charges incurred by the plaintiff.Affirmed.