its interpretation involves question of fact, precluding summary disposition.”); Seaco Ins. Co. v. Barbosa, 435 Mass. 772, 761 N.E.2d 946, 951 (2002) (reversing summary judgment, noting that when a contract has terms that “are ambiguous, uncertain or equivocal in meaning, the intent of the parties is a question of fact to be determined at trial”); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Boston Edison Co., 412 Mass. 545, 591 N.E.2d 165, 172 (1992) (interpretation of ambiguous contract is question of fact for the jury); Weingart v. Allen & O’Hara, Inc., 654 F.2d 1096, 1104 (5th Cir.1981) (applying Florida law) (reversing JNOV on ground that scope of release in settlement agreement was ambiguous and subject to resolution by trier of fact); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>); Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 432,
holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that when agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction issue is properly submitted to jury for resolution as a matter of fact