intent.” Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 164 Vt. 329, 670 A.2d 795, 797 (1995). Neither party contends the HCT Release is ambiguous. When a contract is unambiguous, its interpretation is a matter of law for the court. See John A. Russell Corp. v. Bohlig, 170 Vt. 12, 739 A.2d 1212, 1216 (1999) (“Whether the contract is ambiguous is a matter of law to be decided by the court. If the court concludes the writing is unambiguous, it must declare the interpretation as a matter of law.”). When presented with an unambiguous contract, Vermont law requires the court to determine the parties’ intent from the language of the contract itself, read the contract as a whole, and enforce it in accordance with its terms. See Southwick v. City of Rutland, 2011 VT 53, ¶ 4, 190 Vt. 106, 108, 35 A.3d 113, 114 (<HOLDING>); see also Downtown Barre Dev. v. C & S
holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning