The applicants, victims of extensive fraud involving forged cheques and unauthorized online banking, sought a declaration that their insurer, State Farm, was obligated to provide coverage.
While State Farm accepted coverage for losses from forged cheques, the central issue was whether losses from unauthorized online banking transactions fell under the policy's "Forgery or Alteration" clause.
The court determined that online banking transactions were analogous to a direct transfer of money, not a promise to pay money, and therefore did not fall within the scope of the "Forgery or Alteration" clause.
The application for coverage of online banking losses was dismissed.