Eric Eisenberg v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a bank had no duty of care to a noncustomer after a fraudulent account was opened in the noncustomer’s name
• holding that a bank had no duty of care to a noncustomer after a fraudulent account was opened in the noncustomer’s name
• holding that the plaintiff’s negligence claims were not inconsistent with UCC Article 4A insofar as they challenged the opening and management of the bank account at issue in that case
• holding that “a bank does not owe noncustomers a duty of care”
• holding that banks do not owe non-customers a duty of care
• holding “[plaintiff’s] negligence claims, insofar as they challenge the opening and management of [the] account” are not inconsistent with Article 4A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).