Ohio Casualty Co. v. Bank One

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10974 (1997)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ohio Casualty Co. v. Bank One

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10974 (1997)

Facts

David J. Reiner was a supervisor at Elgin Township (Township). Township had deposit agreements with various financial institutions, including Bank One, Chicago National Association (Bank One), and American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago (ANB) (defendants). Over approximately 20 years, Reiner engaged in check kiting and embezzled more than $1,700,000 from Township-accounts at the various financial institutions, including those at Bank One and ANB. Township assigned all of its claims to these losses to Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty) (plaintiff). Ohio Casualty sued Bank One and ANB for breach of the duty of good faith imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for allegedly paying and depositing kited checks. Ohio Casualty’s allegations against ANB did not include an allegation that any ANB employee knew of Reiner’s check kiting or embezzlement. Conversely, Ohio Casualty’s allegations against Bank One included an allegation that a Bank One employee caught Reiner in the kiting scheme. The court considered whether Ohio Casualty stated a valid claim against ANB or Bank One.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Grady, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership