In Vahle v. Barwick (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1323, plaintiff had filed a personal injury action against a country club and obtained a settlement. She then sued her attorney for malpractice. The trial court held that the release of all persons in the settlement agreement with the country club barred her suit against the former attorney. The appellate court reversed, finding that the question of whether the parties intended to release the attorney was a question of fact which precluded summary judgment. Specifically, the court held that since the attorney was not a party to the release agreement, the attorney could benefit from it only if she was an intended beneficiary of it. (Id. at p. 1328.) The question of whether she was an intended beneficiary of the release agreement is a factual question that could not be resolved on summary judgment.