Jonathan O. Aihie, of our Miami office, recently won summary judgment based on the policy’s anti-concurrent clause. Plaintiff sought compensation for mold testing in connection with an A/C leak at the insured’s property. Prior to Plaintiff’s mold inspection, the insured retained a water mitigation company that installed fans in the affected areas. The fans, however, caused the alleged mold to sporulate and spread throughout the insured’s property. Jonathan requested an engineer to re-inspect the property to confirm that the presence of the mold was exacerbated by the water mitigation company. Jonathan deposed Plaintiff’s corporate representative, who did not determine the cause of the loss.  At the summary judgment hearing, Jonathan successfully argued that the policy’s anti-concurrent clause applied because the insured contributed to the loss by installing the fans to sporulate the mold cells. Otherwise, the loss would have been covered.