in original; underlined emphasis added). b. Parties’ Contentions Florists makes two arguments as to why it is not obligated to cover Ludy’s claims under the Money and Securities provision of the Policy. First, it maintains that Ludy’s loss does not constitute a “physical loss.” Doc. # 41 (Florists Mem. Supp.) at 9-11. In support of this assertion, Florists suggests that there was no actual physical damage to the property in question, thereby the loss was “economic” rather than “physical.” Id. (citing Sentience Studio, LLC v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 Fed.Appx. 77 (9th Cir.2004) (rejecting insured’s argument that film credits could suffer “direct physical loss,” since such loss cannot occur to the “intangible”) and Port Auth. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 245 F.Supp.2d 563 (D.N.J.2001) (<HOLDING>)); Doc. # 47 (Florists Reply Mem.) at 8
holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage holding that asbestosrelated losses to building are intangible or incorporeal and are thus excluded from insurance coverage holding that section 101106 applied to intentional torts even though these are excluded from the tort claims acts coverage holding insurance agent has no duty to advise insured of amount of insurance necessary to cover all potential losses holding that insurance coverage in the context of asbestosrelated diseases is triggered by exposure exposure in residence and manifestation