http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-41343.0.wpd.pdf
When plaintiffs claim a contract is ambiguous, they usually get short shrift from the courts. The meaning of contracts and whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court only, and is reviewed de novo by the Fifth Circuit.
“Interpretation of a contract is a matter of law, as is the determination that a contract is ambiguous, and both are reviewed de novo.” Camden Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Krafsur (In re Newell Indus., Inc.), 336 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir.2003). To determine the parties' intent, Texas law requires us to harmonize the complete document and give effect to all its provisions. Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 610 (5th Cir.2000).
In the Matter of Homeowners Mortgage and Equity, Inc., 354 F.3d 372, 375 (5th Cir. 2003). However, usually the contract is not ambiguous and usually the plaintiff loses. Plaintiffs should use Campbell in the future to support claims of ambiguity.