evidence to determine whether the facially unambiguous terms of the release are in fact ambiguous. Hansen incorrectly asserts, however, that her deposition testimony established an ambiguity and that it was thus error for the court not to consider it. On the third-party-beneficiary issue— whether the general release executed by Hansen and the Peases inures to the benefit of Ford — the intent of the parties controls. Neves, 769 P.2d at 1053-55. Hansen presented evidence that discloses her subjective understanding that the release did not include Ford. Nothing indicates that the Peases thought so or knew this to be Hansen’s understanding. A “unilateral, subjective intent not to include” third parties as beneficiaries of the agreement is not determinative. Jaramillo v. Wyo.1985) (<HOLDING>). In deciding which of these three approaches
holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled holding that general release must name  or specifically describe parties to be discharged holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released holding that release which specifically referenced certain parties but went on to discharge any and all other persons andor corporations was sufficient to release unnamed third party