far as we can tell from the case law, the phrase "losses occurring thereafter” does not appear to be a standard insurance-industry term; we are aware of no reported decision that construes that precise phrase as it appears in a surety bond or other insurance contract. 13 .Accordingly, the term "loss” as used in the Increase Rider must be understood as meaning something other than "damages” (per Black's Law Dictionary, "money claimed” or "ordered to be paid”) and something other than "default." Cf. Metric/Kvaerner Fayetteville v. Fed. Ins. Co., 403 F.3d 188, 198 (4th Cir.2005) ("[A]n insurance policy should be construed to give different meanings to different terms utilized therein.”). 14 . We recognized, however, that “a limited exception exist , 274 Mass. 135, 174 N.E. 324, 328 (1931) (<HOLDING>). 16 .Similarly, in Md. Cas. Co. v. Grays
holding that loss to bank occurred without regard to its possible remedies when its funds in fact were diverted  through the fraud and dishonesty of its treasurer and that the bank could sue on its bond without proof that it had then sustained some actual defined loss not merely nominal as the result of the transaction in question holding that bank could not bring counterclaim in its capacity as trustee holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding under an identical bond provision that discovery occurred after negligence or inattention on the part of the bank in failing to pay attention to records that would have alerted the bank to fraud holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss