The Court acknowledged that the use of the term “cooperate” in the statute was ambiguous, as it could mean either the everyday sense of working together or the narrow, contract-specific meaning familiar in insurance law. Turning to legislative history, the Court examined testimony from the 2020 House Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. MLAs were seen divided on this question. The bill’s sponsor described cooperation as broadly undefined and subject to the insurer’s discretion, suggesting that the statute be meant to rein in that discretion. However, another member of the committee said the policies would continue to define cooperation on its own terms. Without clear indication that the legislature intended to eliminate the common law distinction, the court refused to read one into the statute.
USAA, State Farm win as court limits scope of cooperation law & more related News Here
