The computer fraud provision of the insurance policy did not provide coverage for the policyholder's monetary losses because the losses did not directly result from the use of a computer.

Replacement cost provision requiring “like kind and quality” obligated the insurer to replace all vinyl siding if matching materials were unavailable. Whether matching materials were available, however, was a factual question left for a jury or fact-finder.

The homeowners policyholders’ suit was not untimely filed where it was filed within one year following the insurer’s “formal denial” of additional living expense (ALE) coverage. However, the suit was dismissed where the insurer paid ALE for the full 12-month limit contained in the policy’s endorsement.

Coverage was not available for non-fortuitous losses. Even if the alleged collapse losses were fortuitous, they were not “abrupt” and were caused by excluded decay.