that have “physical substance apparent to the senses.” See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, supra, at 2337 (defining “tangible property”). The insurance policy in this case covers liability for “physical damage to tangible property,” not damage to data and software, i.e., the abstract ideas, logic, instructions, and information. Thus, while it covers any damage that may have been caused to circuits, switches, drives, and any other physical components of the computer, it does not cover the loss of instructions to configure the switches or the loss of data stored magnetically. These instructions, data, and information are abstract and intangible, and damage to them is not physical damage to tangible property. See Lucker Mfg. v. Home Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 808, 819 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Midwest
holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property holding that unless the collision resulted in a total loss the measure of recovery is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was immediately prior to the collision and its value thereafter holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition 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