loss of twenty decibels or more as established by an audi-ogram. As Tate & Lyle emphasizes, all of the one hundred and five plaintiffs at issue satisfied both these criteria; they all had both ten years of employment and an audi-ogram showing at least twenty decibels of hearing loss before their last date of employment at the Arabi refinery. In rejecting Continental’s argument that the settlement agreement required more in terms of the particular type of au-diogram, the trial court reasoned that Continental was seeking to impose its interpretation of the agreement and that “Continental’s understanding of the settlement agreement is contrary to the principle of contractual interpretation in discerning the intent of the parties.” See Duet v. Lucky, 621 So.2d 168 (La.App.33 4th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>); see also Sumrall v. Bickham, 03-1252 (La.App.
holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement holding that an intervenor lacked standing to challenge a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the united states on the grounds that one of the plaintiffs claims was fraudulent because the intervenors were not parties to the settlement and suffered no personal harm from it notwithstanding the potential that its tax dollars went to pay the allegedly fraudulent claim holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt