We're reviewing zero liability timeframes and are trying to get a better feel for how long claims are accepted at other banks under Zero Liability. 120 days is in line with the chargeback timeframes for our Issuer. We've checked with our Issuer, and they are noncommittal- go figure. Anyone care to provide their timeframes?

I'd recommend going straight to MasterCard and Visa with that kind of a question. I did ask MasterCard this question - how long does a consumer have to report fraud and still be covered by Zero Liability? I received the response on 6/9/06 from Customer Support and they stated "there is no timeframe".

Reg. E has no time frame to file a claim. That isn't zero liability, but don't think the problem just goes away. If you can limit the time frame for filing, you'll need to disclose that and denote that it only applies to your specific branded card transactions and that other rights and remedies may exist.

Reg E has no timeframe to file a claim, but can't we, at least, limit our exposure to only the activity occurring within the first 60 days from the statement date in which the first unauthorized transaction occurred under Periodic Statement:timely notice not given? Unless, of course, there were some extenuating circumstances that prevented the customer from reporting within the 60 day period, we may look to take the entire amount.

I don't understand. If the customer doesn't tell you within the first 60 days, you are limited in your financial exposure.

For instance, if they tell you about a reoccurring ACH error from 1 year ago, you are limited to the amount of errors that occurred within 60 days from the first statement showing the first error. You can't deny the claim just because it is > 60 days old, but you don't have to pay them for all 12 months of error.

Remember that liability doesn't apply to all Reg. E claims. If no authorized access devise was used, 205.6 doesn't apply. Hence, no 60 day rule. You won't know unless you investigate.

The Zero Liability policy is truly up to your discression though I'd recommend that you have some documented department guidelines. If you get sued, you don't want a lawyer to discover you are arbitrary in your application of the policy.

When determining liability for the consumer with an accepted access device, you can use this list in this order:

1. Zero Liability policy
2. Billing Error (205.7)
3. Unauthorized Transfers (205.6)

If the first policy doesn't apply, then go down the list until you find one where the dispute qualifies. The liability for the consumer goes up as you go down the list. This assumes your card agreement doesn't disclose a policy that imposes lesser liability on the consumer.