All-

Some RDC machines have the capability of printing on the face of a check as it goes through the machine - RDC Deposit (or something similar). Given the indemnity around the restrictive endorsement, could a bank effectively argue that a paper check that did not contain the restrictive endorsement "For RDC Deposit at XXX" but did contain the RDC language on the face, that the paper item should not have been accepted by a bank for deposit? I had this question asked of me, and my response is "I am not a lawyer and have no idea", but I wanted to throw out the question to the collective minds here. So...thoughts?

My guess is that the unfortunate bank with a teller that accepted such a check may think it has a technical indemnity claim, but will feel too stupid/unobservant to file it. Technically there is no indorsement if it doesn't include a signature of the indorser (although the signature can be in any form, including part of a rubber-stamp impression).

An indemnity claim is a claim. The bank on which the claim is made can refuse the claim if it feels that the claimant bank was adequately forewarned that the check was previously negotiated via RDC, and hope that the refusal will turn the claimant away. The only sure course is to have the remote deposit capture or RDC as part of the indorsement on the back of the check.