VANDE WALLE, Justice. Martinson Bros., a partnership, and John W. Martinson, Linda L. Martinson, Oscar B. Martinson, and Susan M. Libecki brought an action for damages against John Hjellum and the law firm of Hjellum, Weiss, Nerison, Jukkala Wright alleging legal malpractice in connection with the defense of the foreclosure and deficiency-judgment suits at issue in Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 1982). Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Hjellum.

Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. See Minex Resources, Inc. v. Morland, 467 N.W.2d 691, 696 (N.D. 1991); Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D. 1982). Contracts conveying oil and gas interests are subject to the same rules that govern the interpretation of contracts generally. See Holman v. State, 438 N.W.2d 534, 537-38 (N.D. 1989).

Conclusions of law, on the other hand, are not fortified by the clearly erroneous rule applicable to findings of fact, and are thus fully reviewable on appeal. E.E.E., Inc. v. Hanson, 318 N.W.2d 101, 104 n. 3 (N.D. 1982). We must also keep in mind that whether a particular determination is a finding of fact or a conclusion of law is to be determined by the reviewing court and labels placed upon findings or conclusions by the trial court are not conclusive. Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D. 1982); E.E.E., Inc. v. Hanson, supra; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760, 763 (N.D. 1972). In E.E.E., Inc. v. Hanson, supra 318 N.W.2d at 104, our Court distinguished between findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:

In a suit on the performance bond, to the extent that the provisions of the bond and the construction contract conflict the provisions specifically set forth in the bond control. See, e.g., United States ex rel DDC Interiors, Inc. v. Dawson Constr. Co., Inc., 895 F. Supp. 270, 273 (D. Colo. 1995) (since prime contract disputes clause was not specifically referenced anywhere in the subcontract, the incorporation by reference of the prime contract's disputes clause is general rather then specific); see also Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D. 1982) (providing that if a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision qualifies the general provision). However, the Court need not and does not here conclude that the terms of the construction contract and the performance bond conflict.

When the terms of a contract are ambiguous and not clear, the terms should be strictly construed against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. Section 9-07-19 NDCC; Oakes Farming Association v. Martinson Brothers, 318 N.W.2d 897, (N.D.1982). Both parties agree this issue must be settled under North Dakota law, the place of execution and performance of all documents.

On appeal this judgment was modified by the North Dakota Supreme Court to eliminate a $79,655.00 setoff that had been allowed by the trial court against the total amount due to the Oakes Farming Association. Oakes Farming Association v. Martinson Brothers, 318 N.W.2d 897, 909 (N.D. 1982). The total judgment is now $339,522.

[¶ 14] Under our rules of contract interpretation, “if a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision qualifies the general provision.” Kortum v. Johnson, 2008 ND 154, ¶ 44, 755 N.W.2d 432 (quoting Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D.1982)); Fortis Benefits Ins. Co. v. Hauer, 2001 ND 186, ¶ 17, 636 N.W.2d 200 (“[I]t is a well-accepted rule of contract interpretation that when a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision ordinarily prevails over the general provision.”). [¶ 15] Here, “market value at the well” and “no deductions from the ... royalty” are in conflict.

This is simply an application of the principle that “ ‘[i]f a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision qualifies the general provision.’ ” Kortum v. Johnson, 2008 ND 154, ¶ 44, 755 N.W.2d 432 (quoting Oakes Farming Ass'n. v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D.1982)). [¶ 8] In the first reservation paragraph, George Tank reserved “to the Grantor, his successors and assigns, all oil, gas and other minerals now owned by Grantor, including coal, in and under the above-described land.

"[I]f a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision qualifies the general provision." Oakes Farming Assoc, v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D. 1982). [¶ 45] First, Kortum asserts that the district court failed to give any effect to subparagraphs 6(A) and 6(B) of the Agreement.

[¶ 17] Hauer asserts the Teachers' Fund benefits fall within the definition of a Policyholder-Sponsored Retirement Plan. Again, we will not strain the language of the policy to impose liability upon the insurer when the policy language is clear and unambiguous on its face. Furthermore, it is a well-accepted rule of contract interpretation that when a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision ordinarily prevails over the general provision.See Oakes Farming Ass'n v. Martinson Bros., 318 N.W.2d 897, 908 (N.D. 1982); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(c) (1981); 5 Margaret N. Kniffen, Corbin on Contracts § 24.23 (rev. ed. 1998); 11 Samuel Williston Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 32.10 (4th ed. 1999); see also N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(25) ("Particular expressions qualify those which are general"). The rationale for this rule of construction is explained in comment e to § 203 of the Restatement: e. General and specific terms.