As noted in the Banker Briefing we just sent out, insurance commissioners from five states have filed suits against two banks claiming the banks should be liable for losses suffered by seven insurance companies now in receivership. Why should the banks be liable? According to the complaint, because the banks failed to spot the money laundering being conducted by the con artist who was looting the insurance entities. The amounts involved are enormous and the theory of liability, if it succeeds, would be devastating to the financial services industry. Read about it in Know Your Customer -- Or Be Liable to Third Parties?

WOW (say it backwards...WOW!) We will definitely need to watch this one closely. The implications are too much to even comprehend this late in the day. Thanks so much, Mary Beth, for the heads up!

How does this sound...Would you like fries with that?

"...and here's your hot oil disclosure, along with your sodium content disclosure."

Mary Beth, thanks for posting this; it's really scary.

...and the fries may have been touched by someone who touched peanuts yesterday.

Sorry, long day.

Geesh! Sue the government if you want. They print the money and create/control the systems we use.

Mini-rant.
Where does this insanity stop. Why can't anyone assume responsibility for their actions.

I didn't get to the article until this morning, but it sounds to me like the state insurance agencies were asleep on the job. Don't those state agencies perform exams of some sort?? Sounds like they're trying to pass the buck.

But it's PC to "blame the bank" because we must have known......

This reminds me of the McDonalds hot coffee suit - customer did something stupid (put a hot cup of coffee between the legs and got burned) so it must be someone elses fault....

Oh, and, by the way, let's also sue McDonalds because they failed to tell us that their food might make us fat! It's addictive, you know! (Never mind that the guy's weight problem still isn't fixed).

I don't think the insanity will ever stop. As long as this world is full of people who refuse to think for themselves, who won't take responsibility for their actions (like you said), and lawyers willing to take these silly lawsuits, we'll still have to deal with (and protect ourselves from)them.

Isn't this the reason insurance companies are in business, to receive premiums and not pay out on claims?? They find reasons not to pay and drop you for filing a claim??

Rant Warning

Okay, I'll add my two cents worth to this conversation. It is what we get for allowing our society to cultivate a victim mentality. This has been cultivated by special interest groups and attorneys. Each has a vested interest in portraying the group or person they represent as victims who have been harmed by outside forces over which they have no control. Being a victim seems to be the only way to get laws passed in their favor. Interestingly, though, the dictionary gives a definition of victim that we have overlooked in our increasingly whining culture, "A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking." We are so concerned with demanding our individual rights, making someone else pay for our mistakes, and getting something for nothing, that we have forgotten that we live in a community, bound together. Not all lawsuits are frivolous and it is deeply disturbing that we allowed ourselves to get to the point where the only way to make a person or entity do "unto others as we would have them do unto us" is to take them to court.

Go girl!!

Rant Warning
Whatever happened to personal responsibility, remember when accidents were "accidents" where some kid broke a window playing baseball, he went straight to the homeowner, informed them, apologized, and offered to pay for it. Mostly the owner said it was just an accident, fixed it himself and let the guy cut his yard a few times to work it off. Where are we today???? First the kid will run home, his parents will say that he was in the house all day, every day for the last two weeks; so it could not have been him-----then, they might ask him about it. No way would they ever let him cut the yard. (Depending on the age, I might have to agree with this.) The owner will sue them anyway, for damages, mental anguish, etc. and while we are at it let's sue the ball manufacturer and the bat maker and the chain stores that sell the bats and balls and let's get anyone else that has had a broken window in our state to go in this with us (class action) and then some jury will see how pitiful we victims are and we will each get $1 million and the bat people will have to put a disclosure on every bat that is now manufactured out of some new medium, and every ball has to have a disclosure and it is made of some new material. But the companies do not sell their bats and balls in this state anymore, and the stores went bankrupt.

Or-------------- we could just pass a new law that says the attorney can only charge a client a maximum of $XXXXXXX and the firm has to absord all the cost associated with the suit--no passing on copying, mailing, additional staff, etc. to the client. I wonder how many really big lawsuits we would have then? I bet they could do it a lot more efficiently on this budget and they wouldn't have time to take nuisance suits.

Wow, that feels better Have a great weekend.

Wouldn't it be more effective to sue the window manufacturer? After all, they failed to disclose that their product does not have the stopping power to hold off a baseball. They also failed to disclose that their product, when fractured, resulted in sharp edges capable of lacerating family members and pets.

You're right!! They probably do need to mandate a disclosure, and it should be "clear and conspicuous", meaning that we should be able to read it from the street--right? Of course, all of this applies regardless of the size of the window, the bigger the window, the bigger the letters.

A small disclaimer here, I am in Mississippi where tort reform is making us all a little crazy. No offense, please.

Is it any wonder that compliance officers are never selected to serve on a jury? I've been called to appear for jury service a number of times and actually selected to serve on a jury. Now I know why!