Legal Opinion
Guardian Life Insurance v. Chemical Bank
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 18, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*838OPINION OF THE COURT
Lewis R. Friedman, J.
Defendant’s summary judgment motion raises a serious question of the meaning of UCC 3-405 (1) (c). The operative facts are not in dispute, only their legal consequences.
This case is the outgrowth of a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Jerome Rutberg, an insurance agent and broker, who worked with the Baer Insurance Agency in Philadelphia. Rut-berg’s scheme was simple. He would telephone the Guardian Life Insurance Transaction Service representative and request a check for a life insurance loan or policy dividend withdrawal for named policyholders. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Citibank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Sands v. Granite Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Getty Petroleum Corp. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Witten Productions, Inc. v. Republic Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Chemical BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Chemical BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999