added.) It is clear beyond any doubt from this language that the parties intended for the release to cover all forms of liability, including negligence, which resulted from the sale, use, or administration of the heartworm medication. Consequently, this postclaim release was not invalid or unenforceable for failing to include a specific reference to negligence. Abis’s next argument is that the release is unenforceable because it did not specifically state that it covered the appel-lees. Abis’s argument would be well taken if this case involved a release containing a handwritten portion specifically naming one party and a typewritten portion generally referencing “any other person, corporation, association or partnership.” See Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla.1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Sangiovanni v. Stengle, 652 So.2d
holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them holding that releases were ambiguous and thus that summary judgment could not be entered where releases contained blank spaces for parties to handwrite the names of specifically listed parties but also contained typewritten general provisions holding that because the language of the easement was ambiguous the parties intentions were not clear and summary judgment was improperly granted holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding the intent of parties can be inferred from sufficient details contained within the consent judgment indicating the parties understood the consent judgment operated as a final adjudication of the factual issues