v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co, 77 N.M. 671, 676, 427 P.2d 29, 32 (1967) (stating that court will not be reversed when it reaches right result for wrong reason). Although Hansen’s deposition testimony standing alone was insufficient to overcome the apparent import of the “arising out of the accident” language, for reasons of policy discussed below we conclude that boilerplate universal release language such as that used here is circumstantially ambiguous. The best way of determining and enforcing the actual intent of the parties expressed in boilerplate language is to adopt a rebuttable presumption that a gener t release must identify persons in such a manner that parties to release would know who was to be benefitted); Beck v. Cianchetti, 1 Ohio St.3d 231, 439 N.E.2d 417, 420 (1982) (<HOLDING>); McMillen v. Klingensmith, 467 S.W.2d 193, 196
holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement 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 release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons 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