Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, the founder of ATM, served as its president and chief executive officer from 1993 until September 2007, when ATM was sold. In July 1997, ATM hired Vanek to be P's personal assistant. Vanek's responsibilities included picking up P's personal bills, opening the bills; preparing and presenting checks for P to sign; mailing the payments; and balancing P's checking and savings accounts at Dollar Bank. Vanek was to review P's credit card and bank statements and contact the credit card company to discuss any odd charges. P Vanek with access to his credit card number to enable her to make purchases at his request. From November 1999 to March 2006, Vanek withdrew without authorization cash advances of between $200 and $700, typically twice a day, from a D credit card account in P's name. P was unaware that he had a D credit card. These fraudulent charges were reflected on more than 65 monthly billing statements sent by D to P, and Vanek paid the bills by either writing checks or making online payments from P's Dollar Bank checking account. Vanek forged P's signature. Vanek misappropriated over $1 million. D's computer algorithms began detecting what it determined to be potentially fraudulent transactions in April 2004. It made outbound calls to the account's home telephone number and left an automated message on the number's answering machine. D received no response. D left another message for another transaction a week later. D eventually received a call from someone that was able to verify the account's security questions and validate the card activity. D did not use voice recognition or gender identification as a means of security verification. Approximately one year later, D detected another potentially fraudulent transaction and called the home telephone number. A return caller once again verified the account activity. The account was paid in full after each incident. These fraudulent charges were reflected on more than 65 monthly billing statements sent by D to P, and Vanek paid the bills by either writing checks or making online payments from P's Dollar Bank checking account. The account was paid in full after each incident. On March 7, 2006, P discovered the theft. P notified D of the fraud and closed the account. D disputed any and all unpaid charges stemming from the account as well as all prior fraudulent transactions on that account. P filed a complaint against D under §§ 1643 and 1666 of the TILA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (2006), and common law negligence. D filed a motion a motion for summary judgment. D argued that Vanek had apparent authority to make the charges and P was not entitled to reimbursement under TILA. The Magistrate Judge found that (1) P's § 1643 claim failed because Vanek had apparent authority to use Azur's credit card; (2) P's § 1666 claim failed because Azur did not send Chase a timely, written notice properly identifying the specific charges and amounts he was disputing; and (3) P's negligence claim was barred by Pennsylvania's economic loss doctrine. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co