recognizing that a bank owes a duty of reasonable care for a negligent misrepresentation claim when advising a customer on a matter within its particular area of expertise, though finding that situation not present under the facts of the case (citing In re Succession of McKnight, 33,802 (La. App. 2d Cir.10/4/00), 768 So. 2d 794 , 797–98)
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that a bank owes a duty of reasonable care for a negligent misrepresentation claim when advising a customer on a matter within its particular area of expertise, though finding that situation not present under the facts of the case (citing In re Succession of McKnight, 33,802 (La. App. 2d Cir.10/4/00), 768 So. 2d 794 , 797–98)
- “Though a harsh result, jurisprudence from other states has favored the bank over similar victims who fell prey to such scams.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
Before BROWN, STEWART, CARAWAY, DREW and GARRETT, JJ.
Rehearing denied.
BROWN and GARRETT, JJ., would grant rehearing.