The court acknowledged that the statute’s use of the word “cooperate” was ambiguous, since it could mean either the everyday sense of working together or the narrower, 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. Legislators appeared divided on the question. The bill’s sponsor described cooperation as broadly undefined and subject to insurer discretion, suggesting the statute was meant to rein in that discretion. Another committee member, however, implied that policies would continue to define cooperation on their own terms. Without a clear signal that the legislature intended to override the common-law distinction, the court declined to read one into the statute.
