Patco Construction Co., Inc. v. People's United Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that for electronic consumer payments, EFTA, rather than the UCC governs
• granting summary judgment in favor of defendant bank on negligence claim, finding it inconsistent with Section 4-A-202 even while holding that the agreed-upon security procedure was commercially unreasonable
• explaining the case arose because “Ocean Bank . . . authorized six apparently fraudulent withdrawals, totaling $588,851.26, from an account held by Patco Construction Company, after the perpetrators correctly supplied Patco's customized answers to security questions”
• \A fact is material\ only \if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation.\ (cleaned up)
• “[C]ourts have held that plaintiffs may turn to common law remedies to seek redress for an alleged harm arising from a funds transfer where Article 4A does not protect against the underlying injury or misconduct alleged.”
• whether a bank’s security procedure was commercially reasonable under the UCC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).