The appellate court found that the insurer's quote created an issue of fact on whether loss caused by a computer hacker would be covered. Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 355 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2019). 

    The insureds, Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("LLC's") discovered that their bank accounts had been hacked and over $78,000 stolen. They submitted claims to their insurer, Cincinnati. Coverage was denied, and the LLCs filed suit. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati. 

    The "Forgery or Alternation" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from the "'forgery' or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, order or directions to pay a sum of money." "Forgery" was defined as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with the intent to deceive." The LLCs did not cite any evidence that the hacker "signed" anything, let alone that they signed "the name of another person or organization." 

    The "Inside the Premises" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from "'theft' committed by a person present inside the business's 'premises' or 'banking premises.'" The policy defined "premises" as "the interior of that portion of any building you occupy in conducting your business." There was no evidence that the person who committed the thefts was inside the LLCs' buildings or a bank building. 

    The LLCs also argued that even if their computer-hacking losses did not fall under the policy's coverage, certain language in Cincinnati's quotes for that coverage led them to believe that such losses would be covered if they purchased the policy. The quotes said, in part, "While you've taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire." It would be reasonable for an insured to read this language to mean, "If you want to be covered for theft by computer hackers, you should buy this endorsement."

    Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded the case for trial.