Inc. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc., 241 Ga.App. 762, 527 S.E.2d 609, 610-11 (2000) (quoting Wickliffe v. Wickliffe Co., 227 Ga.App. 432, 489 S.E.2d 153, 156 (1997)). Insuring Agreement E covers losses incurred “by reason of ... extending any credit ... or otherwise act[ihg] upon any ... document, or other written instrument which proves to have been a forgery....” The loss fits under an ordinary understanding of those terms. NCB incurred a loss by reason of extending credit based on a forged document. Whether part or all of the loss was caused by the absence of underlying collateral is beside the point. The loss was by reason of the forgery. The loss need not be “directly” caused by the forgery; it need only be “by reason of’ of the forgery. It was. See Manitowoc, 485 F.3d at 980 (<HOLDING>). iv. Good faith Insuring Agreement E only
holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease holding that the fcras provision that a lender may only use and obtain consumer credit information for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit requires that the lender offer something of value as an extension of credit alone holding language of lease did not indicate implied covenant of continued use holding that the mere passive extension of credit does not constitute any form of reliance holding a banks extension of credit based on forged lease documents easily fits within insuring agreement es coverage language