Cooper v. American Family Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• construing similar contributing clause provision to mean there “is no coverage for losses caused by mold, even though a covered ... event may have also contributed to the loss”
• no coverage for mold damage from plumbing leak where lead-in clause excluded losses regardless of any other contributing cause or event
• anti-concurrent causation provision prevented recovery for loss caused by excluded peril [mold] even though covered peril [water] may also have contributed
• in light of anticoncurrent cause provision, insured could not recover for loss caused by mold, which was expressly excluded from coverage, even though covered water event also may have contributed to loss
• “Arizona has not adopted 5 the ‘efficient proximate cause’ rule and as such, an insurer is permitted to limit its liability 6 with a concurrent causation lead-in clause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).