CHAPTER 28: BANKING IN THE DIGITAL AGE 23
EXPLANATIONS OF SELECTED FOOTNOTES IN THE TEXT
Footnote 7: Wulf worked for Auto-Owners Insurance Co. He opened a checking account at Bank One in
the name “Auto–Owners, Kenneth B. Wulf.” Over an eight-year period, he deposited $546,000 in Auto-Owners’ checks
that he stole and endorsed with a stamp that said “Auto-Owners Insurance Deposit Only.” When the scam was
discovered, Auto-Owners filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Bank One, contending that the defendant failed
to exercise ordinary care in opening Wulf’s account because it did not ask for documentation to show that he was
authorized to open an account in the name of Auto-Owners. The courts ruled in the defendant’s favor. Auto-Owners
appealed.
In Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bank One, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Bank One’s
conduct did not “substantially contribute” to bringing about Auto–Owners’ loss. The major reason for Auto–Owners’
loss was its weak monitoring of its own files and the lack of controls in the handling of checks. The bank breached no
duty by opening Wulf’s checking account.
In circumstances such as those in the Auto-Owners case, should a customer have the burden of
proving a lack of ordinary care on the part of its bank, or should the bank have to show that it exercised
Why should a customer have to report a forged or unauthorized signature on a paid check within a
certain time to recover the amount of the payment? The consequence of a customer’s failure to report a forged or
Would the situation have been different if Wulf had handled his account electronically rather than
manually? Electronic banking would have made no difference in the outcome in this instance. The liability rules are
What reasonable steps could Auto-Owners have taken to prevent such internal fraud? Spot audits of
Would the outcome in this case have been changed if Auto-Owners had never given Wulf (and other
staff members) the authority to deposit checks to its bank account? It would not likely have changed the court’s
holding in this case because the UCC section involved in this case, UCC 3–405(b), does not mention a bank’s
Footnote 8: The Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association (MBP) issued a check for $69,559.06 on
its account with Fifth Third Bank to Joyce Washington, Countrywide Home Loans, and T&C Federal Credit Union as
co–payees. Washington indorsed the check by signing all the payees’ names but did not share the proceeds. Fifth
Third notified MBP of the payment through daily and monthly account statements. MBP did not object until it was