1: \begin{proof}

2: This proof is almost identical to that of Theorem 3.1 in \cite{CanizoLods}, with the necessary changes to the setting of evolution families. We give the proof for clarity.

3: 

4: First, it is evident that $\set{A(t) + B(t)}_{t\in I}$ generates an evolution family since $B(t)$ is bounded and continuous in $t$ (see, for example, Theorem 5.2.3 in \cite{PazyBook}). Thus our goal is to prove \eqref{Eqn:MMBound}.

5: 

6: Using Duhamel's formula we can write the evolution family generated by $A(t)+B(t)$ as follows:

7: \begin{equation}

8: U^Y(t,s) h(s) = V(t,s) h(s) + \int_s^t U^Y(t,r) (B(r)V(r,s) h(s)) \dr

9: \end{equation}

10: 

11: This formula can be rigorously justified in the current setting by applying Lemma 5.4.5 in \cite{PazyBook}. We then estimate

12: \begin{equation}

13: \|U^Y(t,s) h(s)\|_Y \leq M_Ve^{-\lambda_Y (t-s)}\|h(s)\|_Y + 

14: \int_s^t \|U^Y(t,r)B(r)V(r,s) h(s)\|_Y \dr.

15: \end{equation}

16: 

17: %\pagebreak

18: 

19: As $B$ maps from $Y$ to $Z$ we can replace $U^Y$ with $U^Z$ inside the integral, and then estimate using the decay estimate in $Z$ to infer

20: \begin{equation}

21: \|U(t,s)^Y h(s)\|_Y \leq M_Ve^{-\lambda_Y(t-s)}\|h(s)\|_Y + \int_s^t M_Z e^{-\lambda_Z(t-r)} \|B(r)V(r,s) h(s)\|_Z \dr.

22: \end{equation}

23: %Using our bound on $B$ we can write

24: %\begin{equation}

25: %\|U^Y(t,0) h(0)\|_Y \leq  M_Ve^{-\lambda_Yt} \|h(0)\|_Y + \int_s^t M_ZM_B e^{-\lambda_Z(t-s)} \|V(s,0) h(0)\|_Y \ds.

26: %\end{equation}

27: %Again using the bound on $V$ we obtain

28: Using our bounds on $B$ and $V$ we obtain

29: \begin{align}

30: \|U^Y(t,s) h(s)\|_Y &\leq M_Ve^{-\lambda_Y(t-s)} \|h(s)\|_Y  + \|h(s)\|_Y M_VM_ZM_Be^{-\lambda_Y(t-s)} \int_s^t e^{-(\lambda_Z - \lambda_Y)(t-r)} \dr \\

31: &\leq M_Y e^{-\lambda_Y (t-s)} \|h(s)\|_Y,

32: \end{align}

33: which is the desired result.

34: \end{proof}

35: