Fraser v. Truist Bank
Elderly bank customers defrauded by a Publishers Clearing House scam sued Truist for negligence and under Florida's UCC Article 4A (Ch. 670). The court held UCC Article 4 preempts the negligence claim to the extent it rests on the unauthorized electronic transfers, but not as to the in-person cashier's check interactions; nonetheless the negligence claim failed because plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that they were 'vulnerable adults' or victims of 'exploitation' under FAPSA, the statutory source of the claimed duty. The Article 4A claim survived Rule 8 because commercial reasonableness of security procedures is better resolved on a complete record.
Key facts
- Elderly customers were defrauded through a Publishers Clearing House scam and made unauthorized electronic transfers and cashier's check purchases through Truist Bank.
- Plaintiffs sued Truist for negligence and violations of Florida's UCC Article 4A, alleging the bank failed to protect them from the fraudulent scheme.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision gives banks and plaintiffs' counsel a clear roadmap on the line between UCC-preempted funds-transfer negligence theories and non-preempted, in-person banking conduct, and on what must be pleaded to convert… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.