I originally posted this message in the "General Discussion" forum and had over 60 hits ... but no bites ... so I'd like to try this forum ...

Is anyone willing to share their experiences (favorable or negative) with self-service safe deposit boxes? More specifically --- safe deposit vaults with "hand-scan" access capabilities and boxes that require only a single key to open. If your bank does this ... how do you mitigate the potential risks involved with this arrangement (other than insurance coverage --- assuming the insurance company provides liability coverage with this set-up)?

I reviewed "safe deposit box" entries on the BOL Information Vault, but am curious about other examples.

I think that everyone is interested, but no one has gone this route yet. The only thing that I have ever seen on the self-serve safe deposit system is write ups on lawsuits because of this type of system. I don't know if you could even get insurance on something like this, seeing has how most are covered under individual homeowner policies.... Sorry, I'm not much help, but I can send you the name of someone to call and some articles if you need them.

An New Idaho Bank of America has the self-service safety deposit boxes.
The handprints are programmed to a id, you walk up, enter the id code assigned, place your hand on the scanner and voila, your let in. They track the entries into the vault and the main door is never out-of-sight of atleast one manager/supervisor.

About the Idaho bank scenario, do the boxes require only one key to open them? If so, how do you verify that the person, once in the vault, does not have a key and opens someone else's box other than his/her own (i.e. his/her parent, grandparent, etc.)?

In a conventional safe deposit relationship your risk management techniques are bound up in your procedures and your contract. With the self service boxes you have no procedures, only your contract. Enhancing it with a state of the art identification system is certainly a plus.

Some of the things that have appeared on BOL have reflected more hysteria than analysis. Some of the cases cited here don't support the premsises for which they were cited. One of the major cases revolved entirely around the fact that the custodian's contract contained conflicting terms; the case was not the indictment of self service boxes that it was described as being.

It will always come back to the language in the contract and how well it explains the fact that you are renting them a hole in the wall, not the Ark of the Covenant. If this is something your institution wants to do find a competent attorney willing to do some research to write your agreement.

KP, to mitigate the risk associated with a customer gaining authorized access to the vault but opening someone else's box in a one-key environment (assuming the customer is unattended in the vault), are you saying the contract should simply state that the customer is responsible for securing access to his/her key, etc.? Similar to the concept of internet banking agreements that state the customer is responsible for protecting his/her on-line password?

The key would be one of several things the contract would address. Pretend like you are trying to explain to your brother-in-law why, no matter what happens, it's not your fault. First draft:

There is one key to your storage box. The key belongs to the storage facility. If this storage box was rented to someone else in the past the lock was changed to accomodate this key before we rented the box to you. Like the key to your home or your car, this key controls access to an otherwise secure place. Do not lose the key. Do not make a copy of the key. It is the key that controls access to your storage box, not the storage facility. You are solely responsible if the key is used to obtain access to the storage box by anyone but you regardless of the circumstances under which that person obtained the key.

Wow, I wish I could remember the details, but I sat in a Dave McGuinn class a bout 2 - 3 years ago and he discussed self service boxes and a couple of court cases that were still in process - he did not appear to be a fan of the programs.
Attending one of his seminars may provide more enlightenment on such a program.