Ontman v. Wells Fargo N.A.
A victim of a 'Business Email Compromise' scam wired $154,174 to a fraudulent Wells Fargo account opened under the name of a luxury watch maker, then sued Wells Fargo for common-law negligence in opening, monitoring, and permitting withdrawals from the account. Applying Florida law, the S.D. Fla. held that a bank owes no duty of care to a non-customer absent a known fiduciary relationship plus actual knowledge of misappropriation, and dismissed with prejudice, declining to reach the UCC Article 4A preemption argument.
Key facts
- A victim of a Business Email Compromise scam wired $154,174 to a fraudulent Wells Fargo account opened under the name of a luxury watch maker and then sued Wells Fargo for common-law negligence.
- The victim was not a customer of Wells Fargo; the fraudulent account was opened by a scammer in the name of a third party.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Business Email Compromise wire-fraud suits against receiving banks are proliferating, and this opinion gives defense counsel a clean Florida-law template for dismissal with prejudice: no duty to non-customers, internal… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.