doctrine did not interfere with that requirement. B. Next, we reject Banclnsure’s argument that the parties successfully drafted around the concurrent-causation doctrine in the Bond. Banclnsure argues that the language in Bond exclusions 2(bb)(4) and 2(bb)(12) contracted around the concurrent-causation doctrine because those exclusions also apply to “indirect” causation. Parties may include “anti-concurrent causation” language in contracts to prevent the application of the concurrent-causation doctrine; however, in those cases where courts have found the contract contains an anti-concurrent causation clause, the language used is clear and specific. See Ken Johnson Props., LLC v. Harleysville Worcester Summary Ins. Co., No. 12-1582, 2013 WL 5487444, at *12 (D.Minn. Sept. 30, 2013) (<HOLDING>). As a matter of law, the Bond’s reference to
holding that the saucier procedure need not be followed in any particular sequence holding that though pjlaintiff was given the power under the ijndenture to pursue any available remedy  that language refers only to actions designed to collect the principal of premium if any or interest on the bonds or to enforce the performance of any provision of the bonds or the indenture holding that the language by reason of having executed any bond is unambiguous and sets forth a simple causeinfact or butfor causation test holding that the insureds own testimony which gave rise to the possibility of concurrent causation created a burden on the insured to allocate the damages between the various causes 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