The appellate court declined to consider the issue of whether the loss fell within the parameters of the policies' definition of "computer fraud" and instead assumed that the loss did so, but held that even if the loss was covered under the insuring agreement, a policy exclusion that unambiguously precluded coverage when the fraud was committed by the insured's "authorized representative" applied to the circumstances of the claim even if the tortfeasor was not the insured's employee.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login