ROSE, Justice.
FACTS
While yet in her minority years, appellant Stacey Lynn Bjork was rendered an “incomplete quadriplegic”1 in a highway accident which happened on April 22, 1979 near Wamsutter, Wyoming. Stacey was riding in an automobile driven by David Oberholtzer on the return of a round trip from Rawlins, Wyoming, to Salt Lake City, Utah, which was sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of Rawlins, First Ward and Second Ward. On November 9, 1983, Ms. Bjork brought suit and the appellees-defendants who remain in this appeal are Chrysler Corporation; The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Ray Jenson; Howard Vanvalkenberg; Byron Sunberg; and Michael B. Hickman.
Stacey Bjork’s father was appointed her guardian, and, through him, she settled for policy limits with his insurance company which policy not only furnished coverage to Mr. Bjork, but also covered the Chrysler car and its driver. In these settlement negotiations, appellant’s guardian executed a form release furnished by the insurance company which Stacey ratified a few years later when she attained her majority. The handwritten section of the document specifically released David Oberholtzer and his and his father, Paul. By its printed words, the instrument also purported to discharge
“ * * * all other persons, firms or corporations liable or who might be claimed to be liable * * * from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind or nature whatsoever * * *.”
The parties do not question the validity of the release to the Oberholtzers.2
At the conclusion of the summary-judgment proceedings — which were predicated [150]*150upon the pleadings, the release in question and affidavits of the guardian and his attorneys stating that they did not intend that the release should discharge any persons but those specifically named therein— the trial court found that the above-quoted “all other persons” catch-all language of the release document had the effect of discharging all unidentified tortfeasors and alleged tortfeasors including the appellees. In coming to its conclusion, the court found that the release satisfied the requirements of § l-l-113(a)(i), W.S.1977, of Wyoming’s version of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act.3 Section 1-1-113 provides:
“Release or covenant not to sue.
“(a) When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to one (1) of two (2) or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death:
“(i) It does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide; but it reduces the claim against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater; and
“(ii) It discharges the tortfeasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other tortfeasor.”
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court held, therefore, that the language of the printed form releasing
“ * * * all other persons, firms or corporations liable or who might be claimed to be liable, * * * ”
were the “terms” of the instrument which satisfied the emphasized proviso language contained in § l-l-113(a)(i), supra.
We will reverse the trial court.
[151]*151THE ISSUE
The appellant identifies the issue for our decision as follows:
Did the trial court err "in granting summary judgment to the appellees on the grounds that they had been released by appellant’s guardian on September 27, 1980”?
We would say that the issue is even more precisely this:
When the release instrument and Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors statutes, §§ 1-1-110 through 1-1-113, W.S.1977, are read together, can it even then be said that it was the intention of the contracting parties and the legislature that a general release would also discharge unidentified tortfeasors who were not parties to the contract and who had offered no consideration to the plaintiff in return for the release, and whose adverse damage judgments — if any — would be reduced in the amount that settling tortfeasors paid or agreed to pay in return for their releases?
Decision
We agree with the trial judge’s conclusion that a decision in this case requires that the Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors statutes and the release document must be considered together as constituting the entire agreement of the parties because, under § 1-1-113, the release of one tortfeasor no longer releases the remaining tortfeasors by operation of law as was the case at common law.4 Since the “terms” of the instrument — according to the directive of § 1-1-113(a)(i) — will decide whether tortfeasors who are not parties to the release contract will enjoy discharge, it therefore becomes necessary to read all of Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors statutes together with the release in order to ascertain whether the instrument contains such “terms” as will have the effect of excusing tortfeasors and/or claimed tortfeasors who are not specifically identified — who are not parties to the release agreement — and who have paid no consideration for their release.
When § 1-1-113 and the release are considered as one, their provisions formulate an instrument which contains:
(1) a handwritten discharge in favor of the Oberholtzers which does not profess to be in full satisfaction of all of Ms. Bjork’s damages;5
(2) a purported printed release of unidentified persons who had not been sued and who had paid no consideration for the release;
(3) a statutory directive that a release or covenant not to sue will not discharge any tortfeasor — “unless its terms so provide”;
(4) a statutory provision which holds that the plaintiff’s claim against tortfeasors who do not settle will be reduced by the amount stipulated or paid by the settling tortfeasor; and
(5) a statutory provision which provides that a settling tortfeasor is relieved of contribution obligations.
The Common-Law Release Rule
Prior to the adoption of Wyoming’s version of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, and absent the “all other persons” release language, the instrument in issue here would have been interpreted to be a common-law release, the effect of which would have been to discharge not only the Oberholtzers but all other joint tortfeasors.
We said in Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, 31 Wyo. 284, 225 P. 586, 587 (1924):
“ * * * A release of one joint tortfeasor operates as a discharge of both, but a [152]*152covenant not to sue one will not discharge the other.”
Accord Day v. Smith, 46 Wyo. 515, 30 P.2d 786 (1934).
A release of one was said to discharge all joint tortfeasors for the reason that, even though the parties may not have so intended, the instrument had the effect of extinguishing the cause of action, and there could therefore be but one satisfaction of the obligation. Natrona Power Company v. Clark, supra.6 This rule was held to operate in favor of unreleased tortfeasors even where the instrument contained an express reservation of the right to sue. We said in Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, 225 P. at 588:
“ * * * The effect of such a reservation in an instrument which would otherwise be a release has frequently been the subject of judicial inquiry, and there are many cases in this country holding that the reservation can be given no effect at all, and that the instrument operates as a release of all persons jointly liable. [Citations.] The idea underlying these cases is that the primary purpose to release is the thing to be carried out, and that the reservation of the right to sue others, being inconsistent with the purpose to release, must be disregarded. Walsh v. New York, C. & H.R. Co., 204 N.Y. 58, 97 N.E. 408, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1137. In other words, the injured person cannot release one wrongdoer and at the same time reserve the right to -pursue another for the same wrong.”
In a more recent case involving the effect of a release by the original tortfeasor upon a successive wrongdoer, the Ohio Supreme Court said in Whitt v. Hutchison, 43 Ohio St.2d 53, 330 N.E.2d 678 (1975):
“In some cases, it was even held that a release of one jointly liable acted as a release of all, even though the release contained an express provision to the contrary. Ellis v. Bitzer (1925), 2 Ohio 89. See, e.g., Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Boone (Fla.1956), 85 So.2d 834; Getzendaner v. United Pacific Ins. Co. (1958), 52 Wash.2d 61, 322 P.2d 1089.”7
The Injustice of The Common Law
These common-law doctrines have been roundly criticized as being “harsh” and “very unfair,” Calamari and Perillo, The Law of Contracts § 20-3 (2d Ed.1977). In Whitt v. Hutchison, 330 N.E.2d at 681, the court said:
“The injustice of the traditional rule was that it frequently acted to extinguish a cause of action which was only partly compensated, even though the parties themselves had no such intention. The rule also made it very difficult for a claimant to settle a claim by partial settlements with several persons who were jointly liable for his injury. A major cause of these difficulties was the doctrine of joint liability itself, a doctrine largely grounded in a policy of assuring compensation for injured plaintiffs, but which the traditional rule paradoxically converted into a burden and a trap for [153]*153unwary plaintiffs. Prosser, Joint Torts and Several Liability, 25 Cal.L.Rev. 413.”
In Prosser and Keeton, Law of Torts, § 49, Release, p. 333 (5th Ed.1984), the authors say:
“This result has been justly condemned because it compels the plaintiff either to forego any opportunity of obtaining what he can get from one defendant without suit, or to give up the entire claim against the other without full compensation. Historically, and on policy grounds, it has no justification, since causes of action against mere concurrent tort-feasors not acting in concert have always been separate, and their separate character should not be affected by the possibility of joinder for procedural convenience. A surrender of one therefore should not on any reasonable basis discharge the other, except to the extent that there has been full compensation. Even as applied to cases of concerted action, the rule seems at best an antiquated survival of an arbitrary common law procedural concept, arising out of long forgotten semi-criminal forms of action; and it has no reasonable application at all to cases of mere concurrent negligence.”
In Annot., 73 A.L.R.2d 403, 407, Release of one joint tortfeasor as discharging liability of others: modern trends, we find these thoughts expressed:
“ * * * The rule has been vigorously attacked by law writers.[8] it has been described as merely a ‘surviving relic of the Cokian period of Metaphysics.’ [9] It tends to defeat the fair expectations and intentions of the parties to the release.![10]!”
In Breen v. Peck, 28 N.J. 351, 146 A.2d 665, 668, 73 A.L.R.2d 390 (1958), the New Jersey Supreme Court said:
“In-the United States the English release rule has been under vigorous attack for many years. In 1923 Dean Wigmore referred to it as a surviving relic which was based on false logic and, although accepted by many courts, was fortunately being repudiated in some states by judicial decisions and in others by legislative action. See Wigmore, ‘Release to One Joint-Tortfeasor,’ 17 Ill.L.Rev. 563 (1923). In his 1930 edition of Cooley on Torts, Professor Throckmorton referred to the growing tendency on the part of American courts to view with disfavor the English release rule and to replace it with the ‘sound and reasonable’ rule that unless the parties so intended a release should not absolve strangers thereto. See Throckmorton’s Cooley on Torts, § 80 (1930). In 1941 Dean Prosser referred to the rule as ‘at best an antiquated survival of an arbitrary common law procedural concept’ and suggested that a plaintiff should never be compelled to surrender his cause of action against any wrongdoer ‘unless he has intentionally done so, or unless he has received such full compensation that he is no longer entitled to maintain it.’ See Prosser, Torts, 1109, 1110 (1941); Prosser, Torts, 244-245 (2d ed. 1955). Cf. Prosser, ‘Joint Torts and Several Liability,’ 25 Calif.L. Rev. 413, 424 (1937). In 1951 Professor Corbin’s work on contracts included devastating comments on the English release rule in the field of torts as well as contracts (4 Corbin, Contracts §§ 931-935 (1951)), and in 1956 Professors Harper and James joined in advocating the modern view that the legal effect of a release on strangers thereto should justly be determined by the intent of the parties to the release and the extent of the compensation paid to the releasor rather than upon outmoded concepts of [154]*154ancient times. See 1 Harper & James, Torts, 711-712 (1956). See also Notes, 22 Minn.L.Rev. 692 (1938); 18 U.Cin.L.Rev. 378 (1949); 33 Notre Dame Law 291 (1958).”
Courts and Legislatures Are Abandoning the English Rule
In the last 50 years, the courts of America have been abandoning the common-law-release rule.11 Many states, including Wyoming, have enacted statutes.12 Even where statutes have not been enacted, courts have retreated from the common-law rule.13 A device commonly employed is to interpret a release instrument to be a covenant not to sue,14 by which the plaintiff does not surrender the cause but merely agrees not to enforce it. Such a covenant does not release other tortfeasors,15 even where rights to sue are not reserved unless full satisfaction is shown.16 The courts have said, in their effort to avoid the unjust result of the English rule, that intent governs rather than form, and that the court will look to the statute (where there is one) and the purported release instrument together in order to ascertain intent.17
Prosser and Keeton explain how the English rule has otherwise been moderated in the American court system when they observe at 334 of their work on the Law of Torts:
“There still remain some instruments which by any fair construction are not covenants, but releases. Even as to these the common law rule has been changed in some states. Statutes have been enacted, and even without a statute, a substantial number of jurisdictions have held that the release does not discharge the second tortfeasor if it provides in terms that it shall not do so. Some of them even have recognized an accompanying oral agreement to that effect, and have met the objection of the parol evidence rule with the argument that the second tortfeasor is not a party to the instrument. Still others have accomplished the same result by the short and simple method of calling a release with reservation of rights against others a covenant not to sue.”
We find ourselves in agreement with Prosser and Keeton, Law of Torts, § 49, Release, supra at 335-336, where the authors express the opinion that:
“The only desirable rule would seem to be that a plaintiff should never be deprived of a cause of action against any wrongdoer when the plaintiff has neither intentionally surrendered the cause of action nor received substantially full compensation. If the statutes are taken into account, this is now the rule actually applied in most American jurisdictions. [155]*155Where there has been such full satisfaction, or where it is agreed that the amount paid under the release is so received, no claim should remain as to any other tortfeasor; but these are questions of fact, and normally to be determined by the jury, where the amount of the claim is unliquidated. * * * If it is clear that the satisfaction received was understood to be only partial, it should not discharge the claim against the second tortfeasor. It is commonly held, however, that a credit is allowed to diminish the amount of damages recoverable against the second tortfeasor, irrespective of an agreement that it shall not, and regardless of whether it is received under a release or a covenant not to sue.”
Wyoming Release History
As early as the late years of the last century, courts interpreting Wyoming law undertook to soften the harshness of the common-law release rule. In Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Artist, 60 F. 365 (8th Cir. 1894), the federal circuit court, in addressing an appeal from the federal district court for Wyoming, held that a release for settlement of a claim for certain personal injuries specified in the release, and
“ ‘ * * * from all manner of actions, causes of action, * * * claims and demands, whatsoever, * * * from the beginning of the world to this day,’ ” 60 F. at 366,
does not discharge responsibility for personal injuries not therein specified and not known to exist at the time the release was executed, since the general terms in the release are limited by the preceding specifications.
In Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, supra, almost 50 years before the enactment of Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors legislation, we said that, where an instrument contained a reservá-taon of right to sue others, we would interpret it as being a covenant not to sue, rather than a release, in which case the unnamed tortfeasors would not be discharged by the execution of the instrument. The rationale for this holding is that where the release and the reservation are considered with the intent of the parties in mind — as that intention is gleaned from the whole instrument — and where the writing can operate two ways — one consistent with intent and the other repugnant to it—
“ * * * the court will give it the construction best calculated to carry out the intent.” Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, 225 P. at 588.
It was the court’s thought that, if the instrument containing a reservation be construed as a release, then the language of the instrument is repugnant to its operational effect because the language says the releasor intends to retain a cause of action against other tortfeasors while the legal effect of a release is to extinguish the plaintiff’s cause of action. However, if the document is construed as a covenant not to sue, then the language of the instrument is not internally repugnant, nor is the language repugnant to the legal effect of the covenant; thus the effect of this interpretation is to carry out the intention of the parties.
Since the passage of Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors legislation, we have considered the effect of the contribution statutes upon a general release which did not contain a reservation of right and have reached an intention of the parties' interpretation which calls for a different conclusion than that which would have been compelled by the common-law release rule. In Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo., 599 P.2d 580, 586 (1979), where the suit was against “successive tortfeasors,” 18 we said:
[156]*156“When a general release discloses it has been given to named [releasees] who denied liability but made payment in settlement, then other alleged wrongdoers who were not parties to the release and made no payment toward satisfaction can fairly be called on to show that either the release which they rely on was intended to discharge them or that the releasor has received full compensation.” (Emphasis added.) Citing: Fieser v. St. Francis Hospital, 212 Kan. 35, 510 P.2d 145, 151 (1973); Missouri v. Crandall, Mo., 581 S.W.2d 829 (1979); Summey v. Lacy, 42 Colo.App. 1, 588 P.2d 892, 894 (1978); Callan v. O’Neil, 20 Wash.App. 32, 578 P.2d 890, 892-893 (1978); Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Sweat, Alaska, 568 P.2d 916, 928-930 (1977); Rock v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co., 39 N.Y.2d 34, 382 N.Y.S.2d 720, 346 N.E.2d 520 (1976); Annot., 39 A.L.R.3d 260 (1971); Annot., 8 A.L.R.3d 639 (1966).
Given the effect of the applicable statutes (particularly § 1-1-113(a)(i) and (ii)), the purported release instrument and the holding in Harris v. Grizzle, supra, it can be seen that the common-law rule no longer holds in Wyoming because, at common law, a general release — either with or without reservation language — would serve to discharge all unnamed tortfeasors. Under the statute, on the other hand, unidentified tortfeasors are not released unless the terms of the agreement so provide, and, according to our holding in Harris v. Grizzle, the burden is upon those who are not parties to the release and have made no payment toward satisfaction of the claim, to (a) establish that the parties intended that they be discharged by producing proof to that effect or (b) prove the releasor has received full compensation.
Full Compensation Is Not Shown In the Case at Bar
Recalling Harris v. Grizzle, supra, and reading the summary-judgment pleadings, affidavits and supporting documents together with the statute and release instrument in the appeal which is here for our consideration, it becomes apparent that the record contains no evidence that the releasor has received full compensation for her injuries. By its own terms, the release only purports to have been executed as a “compromise adjustment,” and the record reveals that Ms. Bjork received the policy limit of $50,000 from the Oberholtzers’ insurance carrier. If Stacey Bjork is an “incomplete paraplegic” — as alleged — we are certainly not prepared to say as a matter of law in this appeal from a summary judgment that she has received the “full compensation” of which Harris v. Grizzle speaks.
Intention of the Parties
In support of their contention that the “all other persons” catch-all language of the release is all that is necessary to provide the court with the parties’ intent, the appellees rely upon our opinion in Coulter, Inc. v. Allen, Wyo., 624 P.2d 1199 (1981). Preliminarily, it should be noted that the Coulter case is in contract rather than the law of torts which furnishes the underpinning for the case at bar. Additionally, the release In Coulter purported to discharge the releasee in recognition of full payment of the debt, rather than a settlement for a part thereof — which is what we are compelled to assume to be the situation in the appeal before the court here.19 In comparing the Coulter release problem with the issue with which we are concerned in the case at bar, it is also to be remembered that in our search for the intent of [157]*157the parties, in Coulter, we were able to analyze a release contract document unencumbered by statutory impact, where here it is necessary to read the release agreement and the contribution statutes together in order that the parties’ intentions may be ascertained.
In Coulter, we acknowledged that the release should be construed according to the law of contract in order to ascertain the intention of the parties. We said, quoting Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (1980):
“ ‘Our basic purpose in construing or interpreting a contract is to determine the intention and understanding of the parties. [Citations.] If the contract is in writing and the language is clear and unambiguous, the intention is to be secured from the words of the contract. [Citations.] And the contract as a whole should be considered, with each part being read in light of all other parts. [Citations.] The interpretation and construction is done by the court as a matter of law. [Citations.]
“ ‘If the contract is ambiguous, resort may be had to extrinsic evidence. [Citations.] An ambiguous contract “is an agreement which is obscure in its meaning, because of indefiniteness of expression, or because a double meaning is present.” [Citation.] Ambiguity justifying extraneous evidence is not generated by the subsequent disagreement of the parties concerning its meaning. [Citation.]
“ '* * * Whether ambiguity exists is a question of law. * * * ’
“See Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, 31 Wyo. 284, 225 P. 586 (1924); and Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo., 599 P.2d 580 (1979) for instances in which releases were construed as a matter of law.
“ ‘Generally the construction and legal effect of an ambiguous contract are questions of law, although where its meamng depends on extrinsic evidence which is in material conflict, or capable of more than one inference, a question of fact as well is presented.’ (Emphasis supplied.) 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 617.” 624 P.2d at 1203-1204.
When the Statute and the Release Are Taken Together They Do Not Form a “Clear and Unambiguous” Contract As Was the Case in Coulter, Inc. v. Allen
In Coulter, we applied the above-quoted rules from Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, supra, to the instrument in question and held that the language of the release was clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, and that the instruction giving the jury the authority to find whether or not the release was effective as a factual determination was,.therefore, error. We cannot say as a matter of law, in the case at bar, that the relevant release provisions are in full payment for the injuries suffered, nor can we say that the discharge provisions which are contained in the release and the applicable contribution statutes are “clear and unambiguous.” That this same boilerplate catch-all release language, taken together with the provisions of Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tort-feasors law combines to formulate a meaning which is “capable of more than one inference,” 20 thereby structuring an ambiguous contract which lends itself to interpretations of law and fact concerning the intention of the parties and the legislature, is a proposition which finds its support in numerous authorities throughout the country.
In an appeal where the statute abrogates the common-law rule by providing that the release does not discharge any other tort-feasor “unless its terms otherwise provide” (which is similar to the language contained in Wyoming’s § 1 — 1—113(a)(i)), the Ohio Supreme Court, in Beck v. Cianchetti, 1 Ohio St.3d 231, 439 N.E.2d 417, 420 (1982), held [158]*158that the intention of the parties governs the interpretation of releases, and went on to say:
“Apparently the General Assembly intended to change the common law; otherwise, there would have been no reason to enact the statute. The legislative mandate in R.C. 2307.32 [21] abrogates the common law rule which provided that a release given to one tortfeasor was a release to all others (see Whitt [v. Hutchison], supra) and often entrapped the average person into reasonably assuming that settling a claim with one person would have no effect upon rights against others with whom he did not deal. Instead, R.C. 2307.32 provides that a release to one tortfeasor does not discharge any other tortfeasor ‘unless its terms otherwise provide.’ The thrust of the section is to retain the liability of tortfeasors and, thus, the phrase ‘unless its terms otherwise provide’ should be narrowly construed and require a degree of specificity. Allowing a discharge based upon general language which does not name or identify a tort-feasor perpetuates the common law rule and is contrary to the statute
“The statutory phrase ‘unless its terms otherwise provide’ requires a release to expressly designate by name or to otherwise specifically describe or identify any tortfeasor to be discharged. For example, a release could meet the statutory requirement by naming an individual or specifically identifying a tortfeasor such as stating the driver cf the car which struck the motorcycle.[22]
!)t * * !⅜ Sfc *
“We conclude that R.C. 2307.32 requires that a release designate by name or otherwise specifically identify a party to be released. Broad general language, such as ‘all other persons, ’ is not sufficient. Thus Gianchetti, appellant’s decedent, was not released because he was not specifically identified.” (Emphasis added.)
In Young v. State, Alaska, 455 P.2d 889 (1969) (accord Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Sweat, supra), Justice Rabinowitz, writing for a unanimous court, analyzed facts and law similar to the case at bar. There, a passenger was injured in a construction area and sued the driver, the road contractor and the State of Alaska. The plaintiff subsequently released the driver with a discharge instrument which not only named him personally, together with his heirs, agents, etc., but also purported to release “all other persons,” with essentially the same language as is contained in the release between Bjork and the Oberholtzers.
The contractor and the State moved for summary judgment in reliance upon the above-quoted language; the trial court granted the motion, and the Supreme Court of Alaska reversed. Having reviewed the historical injustice produced by the common-law rule, the Alaska court went on to notice that courts have persistently sought ways to employ judicial distinctions in order to avoid applying the English rule. These efforts have included interpreting instruments as covenants not to sue (see Natrona Power Company v. Clark, supra); the making of judicial distinctions between independent and concurring torts (see Prosser, Joint Torts and Several Liability, 25 Cal.L.Rev. 413 (1937)); and statutory exceptions to the common-law rule (as in Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors legislation).
The Alaska court observed that these judicial distinctions have resulted in the formulation of three identifiable rules which have been set out in Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation v. Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc., 351 F.2d 925, 928-929 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 620, 15 L.Ed.2d 526, they being:
[159]*159“(1) A release given one joint tort-feasor necessarily releases all others even though it expressly reserves rights against them. This is generally referred to as the common law rule.
“(2) A release of one tort-feasor does not release other joint tort-feasors unless the release expressly so provides.
“(3) A release of one tort-feasor releases all others jointly liable unless the release expressly reserves rights against joint tort-feasors.”
The Supreme Court of Alaska opted for the second of these positions, and reversed the trial court with the following rationale:
“In our opinion the rule which will bring most clarity to this area of ambiguous and conflicting release rules is one under which a release of one tort-feasor does not release other joint tort-feasors unless such tort-feasors are specifically named in the release. We are of the further view that adoption of this rule will insure that the intent of the parties to the release is given effect and will greatly minimize the possibility of any party being misled as to the effect of the release.” 23 Young v. State, 455 P.2d at 893.
In Alsup v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 101 Ill.2d 196, 77 Ill.Dec. 738, 461 N.E.2d 361 (1984), the plaintiff’s car was struck by a second car. Suit was filed against the driver of the second vehicle and also Firestone, who had manufactured the tires for the second vehicle. Plaintiffs settled with the driver and executed a release, whereupon Firestone moved for summary judgment in reliance upon the release. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. The issue in the case was this:
“ ‘Whether the terms of a release which include the payer “and all persons, firms and corporations, both known and unknown, of and from any and all claims’ provide for the release of an alleged joint tortfeasor pursuant to Section 302(c) of the Illinois Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 70, sec. 302(c)), where plaintiffs investigated whether an action could be brought against the alleged joint tortfeasor and believed that no cause of action existed and where plaintiffs have stated in affidavits that they did not intend to release the alleged joint tortfeasors, but where plaintiffs executed the release after consultation with their attorneys?’ ” 77 Ill. Dec. at 739, 461 N.E.2d at 362.
Section 2(c) of the Illinois Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act contained the same provisions as our § l-l-113(a)(i). As a predicate for decision, the Illinois Supreme Court observed:
“Our statute is based upon the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act.
“The language of the releases given by the plaintiffs, from which we have quoted, is general and broad. The releases purport to release the payers and ‘all other persons, firms, and corporations, both known and unknown’ from any and all claims resulting from the accident in which the plaintiffs were injured. As appears above, section 2(c) of the Act provides that a release ‘does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide.’ The question for decision is whether the releases given by the plaintiffs satisfied the condition, viz, ‘unless its terms so provide.’ “The plaintiffs contend that the Act requires a release to name, or otherwise specifically identify, another tortfeasor in order to discharge that tortfeasor from liability. They say that the inclusion of general language such as ‘all other persons, firms, and corporations’ is not effective to release persons other than the tortfeasor or tortfeasors who specifically contract for the release.” (Emphasis added.) 77 Ill.Dec. at 740, 461 N.E.2d at 363.
[160]*160After noting that there were cases to the contrary, the Illinois court observed that a purpose of the uniform act was to abrogate the common-law rule that the release of one tortfeasor was a release of all tort-feasors and that if literal effect were given to every use of a general release form
“ * * * and ‘all other persons, firms, and corporations’ * * * were to be discharged, the purpose of the Act would be thwarted by the unintended release of persons who were strangers to the release contract.” 77 Ill.Dec. at 741, 461 N.E.2d at 364.
The court went on to say:
“The legislature intended to abolish the common law rule that produced an involuntary discharge of joint tortfeasors. Section 2(c) states that a release will not operate to ‘discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury * ⅜ We do not consider that the modifying language that follows, i.e., ‘unless its terms so provide,’ should be interpreted to allow the legislative intendment of nullifying the common law rule to be frustrated through the use of what are often general release forms. The legislature surely was aware of the criticism that the common law rule often operated to violate the intentions of persons giving releases. We consider that the legislature’s intendment was that under section 2(c) a release was not to discharge ‘other tortfeasors’ from liability unless they were designated by name or otherwise specifically identified.” 77 Ill.Dec. at 741, 461 N.E.2d at 364.
Other courts have followed these various opinions. When the issue of releasing successive tortfeasors (as in the case of Harris v. Grizzle, supra) was before the Supreme Court of Texas in McMillen v. Klingensmith, Tex., 467 S.W.2d 193 (1971), the court said, after examining the common-law rule, the statutes abrogating it, and the recent cases:
“The rule [which the court adopts] is a simple one. Unless a party is named in a release, he is not released.” 467 S.W.2d at 196.
The Texas Supreme Court observed that this rule avoids many of the problems of the unity-of-release rule and particularly it avoids the necessity of proving by parol evidence the releasor’s subjective intent at the time the release was executed.
In the recent Texas decision, Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Company, Tex., 665 S.W.2d 414 (1984), the release discharged the named tortfeasor and
“ ‘ * * * any other corporations or persons whomsoever responsible therefor, whether named herein or not * * * (emphasis added).’ ” 665 S.W.2d at 418.
The court held that tortfeasors who were not specifically named would not be released by this language, stating:
“ * * * Our purposes in abolishing the ‘unity of release’ rule and requiring specific identification of nonsettling tort-feasors were to encourage both partial and full settlements; to avoid unfairly depriving injured Texas residents of their full satisfactions; to avoid providing an incentive to tortfeasors to delay or to stay out of early settlement negotiations; and to ensure that Texas claimants do not inadvertently lose their valuable rights against unnamed and perhaps unknown tortfeasors by settling with only one of the wrongdoers. See Knutson v. Morton Foods, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 805, 807-08 (Tex.1980); McMillen v. Klingensmith, 467 S.W.2d at 195-96. To effectuate these policies, we must narrowly construe general, categorical release clauses. A nonsettling tortfeasor should not fortuitously escape compensating his Texas victim simply because of settlement arrangements that did not encompass him or his conduct and to which he contributed nothing. If Cessna obtains the benefit of the Duncan release, then the policies underlying McMillenwiWob-viously be frustrated.”
In Rosano v. Lustgarten, 54 A.D.2d 758, 387 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1976), where plaintiff was struck with a golf ball and thereafter released the defendant who struck him— such release being by means of an instrument containing the “all other persons, [161]*161firms or corporations” language which is contained in the release executed by Mr. Bjork in the appeal at bar — the New York Supreme Court held that the release was properly modified to reflect the true intent of the parties which was to release only the named tortfeasor. Accord Sage v. Hale, N.Y., 75 Misc.2d 256, 347 N.Y.S.2d 416 (1973).
In Robertson v. McCarte, 13 Mass.App. 441, 433 N.E.2d 1262 (1982), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts considered an identical statute and a release which contained the same broad language which concerns us here. One tortfeasor was released, unidentified alleged tortfeasors were claiming the benefit of the discharge, and the court held that the effect of the statute (identical with our § l-l-113(a)(i), including the “unless its terms so provide” language) is that a release or covenant not to sue given in good faith to one of a number of tort-feasors does not include those not named in the release or covenant.
Conclusion
The question to be answered, then, in the case at bar is:
Given the language of the release and the provisions of Wyoming’s Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors statutes, what was the intent of the parties when they executed the release in issue here with reference to the unnamed tortfeasors?
Without the language,
“ * * * all other persons, firms or corporations liable or who might be claimed to be liable * * * from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind or nature whatsoever * * *,”
the appellees would not have been discharged because § l-l-113(a)(i) so provides. Paraphrased, it says that when a release is given in good faith24 to one of two or more tortfeasors, it does not discharge the other tortfeasors — “unless its terms so provide.” Whether the “terms so provide” — that is, whether the “all other persons” language will include the appel-lees — is a question of intent. Coulter, Inc. v. Allen, supra; Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, supra; Harris v. Grizzle, supra; Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, supra. Viewing a release instrument as a contract, as we said we must do in Coulter, Inc. v. Allen, supra, quoting Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, supra, we must ascertain the intention of the parties by first looking within the four corners of the instrument — which, in this appeal, includes both the contract and the statutes— in the hope that we will find the relevant writings free of ambiguity. If this is possible, we need only look to the plain meaning of the words in our effort to ferret out the intention of the parties. If, however, the language is not clear and is ambiguous— i.e., if its meaning is obscure because of indefiniteness of expression or because a double meaning is present, Coulter, Inc. v. Allen, supra—then applicable rules of contract interpretation must be applied in order that intention may be ascertained. If necessary, resort to extrinsic evidence may be had. Coulter, Inc. v. Allen, supra; Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, supra; Harris v. Grizzle, supra. Whether ambiguity exists is a question of law. (See quotations supra from the Coulter opinion.) When the broad language of the release and the contribution statutes are considered as constituting the entire agreement, we hold the agreement to be ambiguous.
In the case which is here on appeal, the issue of release-contract ambiguity must be settled by viewing the question in an historical setting. This is so because it is the court’s duty to undertake to discover what evil the legislature sought to remedy through the Right to Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors legislation. In our pursuit of this purpose, we are mindful of the fact that, in too many instances, the eom-mon-law-release rule has not served to fulfill the purpose of the settling parties for [162]*162the reason that, even though the parties may not have so intended, its effect has been to extinguish the plaintiff’s cause of action before full compensation was received. Whitt v. Hutchison, supra; Prosser, Joint Torts and Several Liability, 25 Cal.L.Rev. 413 (1937). The English rule made it difficult to settle with several persons who were jointly liable. Prosser, supra. The effect of the rule was to compel the plaintiff to forego any opportunity of obtaining that which was available from one defendant — although incomplete and inadequate compensation — without giving up his cause of action against other tort-feasors. Prosser, supra.
In their effort to alleviate these unjust consequences, it became the policy of the courts to encourage settlement and, to this end, to avoid the English rule whenever possible. Some courts recognized an accompanying oral agreement to the effect that the release will not discharge the remaining tortfeasors if the oral agreement so provided. Other courts found ways to hold that the instruments in issue were covenants not to sue rather than releases, in order to take advantage of a rule which permits the plaintiff to agree not to enforce his right of action in lieu of surrendering it. Natrona Power Co. v. Clark, supra; Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N.Y. 455, 66 N.E. 133 (1903); Prosser, supra. Courts have looked at the composition of the instrument in an effort to avoid the English rule and have held that, in ascertaining the intent of the releasor, where the release is structured so that particular words precede general recitals — as in the case at bar — the release will be restricted to the matters particularly recited. 66 Am.Jur.2d Release § 31, citing Texas and Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dashiell, 198 U.S. 521, 25 S.Ct. 737, 49 L.Ed. 1150 (1905); Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Artist, supra; Reggio v. Warren, 207 Mass. 525, 93 N.E. 805 (1911); Williams v. Riley, Mo.App., 243 S.W.2d 122 (1951); Grumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 444 (1869); Kent v. Fair, 392 Pa. 272, 140 A.2d 445 (1958); Quebe v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 98 Tex. 6, 81 S.W. 20 (1904). Legal scholars have observed that, unless the intention is clear and compensation has been fully paid, a release should not be held to absolve strangers to the instrument. Cooley, Law of Torts § 40 (1932); 1 Harper and James, Law of Torts § 10.1, pp. 711-712 (1956); Legislation and Administration, Torts, Tort-Feasors — Release of One Tort-Feasor Not a Release of All Tort-Feasors Who May Be Liable for the Same Tort, 33 Notre Dame Law 291 (1958); Recent Cases, Unqualified Release of One Concurrent Tort Feasor Acts as Release for All, 18 U.Cin.L.Rev. 378 (1949); Notes, Joint Tort-Feasors — Release of One Joint Tort-Feasor as a Bar to Right of Action Against Others — Satisfaction— Judgments, 22 Minn.L.Rev. 692 (1938).
In an effort to overcome the harsh effects of the common law, states have passed statutes, among which are the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-feasors acts. (Wyoming’s version is §§ 1-1-110 through 1-1-114, W.S.1977.) As has been noted, these statutes hold that a release of one joint tortfeasor will no longer release other tortfeasors unless the “terms” of the release so provide. Section l-l-113(a)(i). In the instant case, there is a “term” which must be interpreted — namely, the purported release of not only the specifically identified releasees, but
“ * * * aj] 0⅛61. persons, firms or corporations liable or who might be claimed to be liable * *
The presence of this phrase raises the question which asks whether it was intended by these parties to include the appellees.
By reason of the above considerations, we are brought to these conclusions:
The thrust of the public policy announced in § 1 — 1—113(a)(ii) is to retain the liability of tortfeasors, thus abrogating the common-law release rule. Therefore the phrase “unless its terms so provide” should be narrowly construed. Beck v. Cianchetti, supra. To permit discharge of noneontributing tortfeasors where a plaintiff has received only partial compensation, based upon broad, general language which does not identify the tortfeasors, effectively perpetuates the English rule in contra[163]*163vention of the legislature’s intention, Beck v. Cianchetti, supra. The phrase “unless its terms so provide” (§ l-l-113(a)(i)) compels the releasor to name or otherwise specifically identify the released tortfeasors in order that the intent of the parties be fulfilled. Beck v. Cianchetti, supra. These resolutions are fortified, not only by Beck v. Cianchetti, but by other well-reasoned opinions. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Sweat, supra; Young v. State, supra; Alsup v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, supra; Robertson v. McCarte, supra; Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Company, supra; McMillen v. Klingensmith, supra.
Such a rule will most nearly assure that courts will be able to identify the intention of the parties with certainty, and it will have the effect of eliminating the ambiguity factor which, without the rule, will forever plague release agreements in tort actions.
This holding effectively obviates the necessity of resorting to the Harris v. Grizzle rule which sanctions the taking of testimony to ascertain whether or not the parties intended that tortfeasors not named in a release should be discharged through the instrument’s general provisions.
Reversed.