is a cause of the event if the event would not have occurred but for that conduct.' It is sometimes stated as 'sine qua non ’ causation, i.e., 'without which not....’” Boeing Co. v. Cascade Corp., 207 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir.2000). "In determining whether a particular factor was a but-for cause of a given event, we begin by assuming that that factor was present at the time of the event, and then ask whether, even if that factor had been absent, the event nevertheless would have transpired in the same way." Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003). 7 . A n 52 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of
holding unambiguous release executed by literate intelligent party could not be nullified absent vice of consent holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding that the language by reason of having executed any bond is unambiguous and sets forth a simple causeinfact or butfor causation test recognizing language that an exclusion applies regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss constitutes an adequate anticoncurrent causation provision and evidences the parties intent to contract around the concurrent causation doctrine