Summary judgment is appropriate where it is determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. Proc. 56.03. Accord DLH Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (summary judgment permits the court to dispose of an action on the merits if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact). "Since, however, all factual inferences must be drawn against the movant for summary judgment, it follows that, even where the movant's supporting documents are uncontradicted, they may in themselves be insufficient to sustain his burden of proof." Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co, 300 Minn. 223, 229, 219 N.W.2d 641, 646 (1974) quoting Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 485, 70 N.W.2d 351, 353 (1955). Further, if the evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment remains subject to conflicting interpretation causing reasonable persons to differ regarding its significance or if it is necessary to inquire into facts which might clarify application of law, summary judgment will not be appropriate. DLH, 566 N.W.2d at 70-71; Republic Nat'l. Life Ins. Co. v. Lorraine Realty Corp., 279 N.W.2d 349, 356 (Minn. 1979).