After an automobile collision, Tameka Cone and Xavier Dickenson disputed whether their $25,000 settlement required a general release or only a limited release that would preserve Cone’s claim against her uninsured-motorist carrier. The trial court enforced Dickenson’s version of the settlement and denied Cone’s cross-motion to enforce her version. The Court of Appeals held that conflicting evidence about the parties’ communications left a jury question over the release terms, so Dickenson’s version could not be enforced as a matter of law. It affirmed the denial of Cone’s motion and reversed the order enforcing Dickenson’s motion, leaving the settlement terms for further proceedings.