Federal Deposit Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1DissentGodbold, Circuit Judge
I dissent on the issue of notice to the sureties.
I agree with my colleagues that the inquiry as to timeliness is one of fixing the point in time at which the bank ei*740ther discovered there had been fraud or received information sufficient to require it to investigate further. I agree that a mere suspicion of wrongdoing is not enough.
The wrongful acts sued on as breaches of the bond were alleged to be “certain dishonest, fraudulent and/or criminal acts” committed by Steiner, Morris, Garrett, and Gallaher. The complaint set out with considerable specificity the various acts done by each of these…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- The Hidden Splendor Mining Company v. General Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1966
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bank of ThorsbyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
- London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. American Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934
- Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.