didn't maintenance of an account opened in his name over a series of six years a identity theft thief was able to essentially embezzle over one million dollars from a series or by using a chase credit card open to his name and filtering money from his checking account or chase and then into her pocket at the district court level the district court granted judgment in favor case on all of the counts which included a claim under sixteen forty three under the truth in lending act as well as section six hundred sixty six under in the fair credit billing act that's a part of to us as well as a negligence claim initially just looked at that case in the matter of asher and noted that there certainly is an infirmity of claim under sixty forty three and that the majority of circuit that there is an affirmative claim that there is can you point to the  would they do that if there was not an affirmative plain provided for under six hundred forty three i am reading from section two point  microphone up just a little bit i think it's it's not picking up your sorry the court and i'm quoting although the truth in lending act does not state explicitly that a card holder can bring a suit claiming a violation of fifteen u s c i say really from the statute or you're reading from the union from the opinion from even from the statute the statu says that the card holders why bill t is limited to fifty fifty dollars when the charges are unauthorized in order to enforce the meaning of that statute you would have to allow for a claim by the card holder against card issuer if you didn't then there's no way of limiting the liability to fifty dollars isn't that statute essentially an eight card holders we are there is for example for which in the use of a credit card and the issuer goes after the card holder the card holder can then say i gave you notice in my life billie is limited to fifty dollars that is certainly one of the purposes of the statute and that's certainly part of the cla here with mr a's or their outstanding charges they have not been paid on his account and chase is claiming that those are owed by him and they are on his credit report so that is one leg of his claim the other leg certainly is reimbursement for the costs that are already paid but in a situation where the energy thief is able to access both a credit card open in his name as well as his tracking you count the payments had been that the limitation a liability of fifty dollars as well as one year statue of limitation certainly implies if not explicitly states that there is an affirmative cause of action so how do you get around our decision in s deposition he was asked did you have to give her i mean is this manic that's right masonic some of your contact information so she could make these calls on your behalf to the credit card companies answer i would assume that she would need to know what the card number was and all of those things like that and i'm sure i would have given it to her that's her so he gave her the number normally in that deposition it's clear that he's referring to other cards that he gave her access  unclear due to the lack of documentation provided by chase they've never been able to provide us with cardholder agreements a history of this card it appears and it's still disputed that what it may have been a first u card and then turned to a bank one card and then a chase one card it is unknown how she gained access to this chase card this panic has taken the fifth she is now serving time in federal prison so it's unclear we surmise perhaps she stole it out of his desk that is referenced in the complaint but we're just not sure and also a possibility me be that she intercepted an unsolicited offer from chase and opened up the card we're just not sure i'd like to picked up on a response he gave to the judge and the share a moment ago when he asked you about sovereign bank sovereign bank concluded specifically that sixty forty three does not address nor is it even concern with the liability of an issue or any party other than the card holder in with or history charges was it necessary for sovereign bank to reach that conclusion to interpret sixteen forty three in order to went through the compliance per amp and was able to obtain reimbursement for the monies that it had to pay back to its account holders it's unclear from the opinion of look forward i don't know i saw her bank did not take that same route it dollar bank checking account that he did and as i understand the facts over all of these years of the seven year period payments were made on the credit card from the dollar bank account if somebody did that out of my account i would know it pretty quickly not just from watching it but the back of the call but so  however it's our position that that's an issue that the jury needs to decide every one situation is different and although if someone doesn't then i'm a man of money out of my checking account and quite frankly they could not have i certainly would have noticed it however in his set of circumstances he didn't notice it is that reasonable is that not reasonable it's our position that's for sure you said i certainly would know about it why why can't we say the same thing about mr adie's or he says his circumstances are different you have to take everyth personal assistant who he in trusted to do all of these things for him but that doesn't mean that you can ignore your own personal account from which over a million dollars was use to pay off a credit card you say you would know about that isn't that the reason why banks since they managed our homes this is your statement you have a problem with a lot of snow is that when we have to draw a distinction between the bank and the car issuer in here we have to look at the perspective of chase it now wants to say that it was relying on the parent authority of an agent that will have a point because what i'm wondering is where do you really place responsibility to place responsibility on the card holder to look and inspect the statements when they come in each month work is it on someone else you know what savings are we talking about your honor the credit card seams or the banks that well i could say about but i'll say the banks that ok that's his his bank say sure and he did not notice the money coming out of his bank statements they are talking about a million dollars in a space of seven years so little over six years but they're fairly consistent payments made on a regular event seeing records may constitute responsibility sure is but you have to look at the circumstances and isn't unreasonable in their circumstances also from chase's person and all of your what you're saying is there were charges on tracking account for between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars a month right no six or seven years old one hundred two hundred thousand dollars a year that he didn't notice correct that's correct and there was a little less you're saying in that with the question of a parent authority the bike at sixty five separate payments totaling one million dollars without complying and you're saying there can't be a conclusion as a matter of law but this woman how to parent afford that certainly our than there ever be a conclusion as a matter of law that someone  authority not it's very rare and certainly not under the circumstances it's for us we think it's clear error to allow chase to rely on parent thirty when they also are saying they didn't know any age and existed here those are completely and that are cool arguments that the excepted we think it is as a matter of law if chase is claiming they didn't know anyone other than the cardholder or didn't believe that anyone other than the primary cardholder was using the car card they can simultaneously claim we thought there was did you how do you make an electronic transfer from a personal account i mean you have a password you know in her situation she literally cut and paste his signature onto a letter and then fax the letter authorization thank you your honor james martin for appellee chase let me start with section six hundred forty three if i could and as far as the actual case is concerned i'm not aware of that case it wasn't cited in the briefing but i'm not sure that it matters put myself respectfully in the position of disagreeing with the seventh circuit in terms of their analysis of the statute and the idea that it could create an affirmative right of action in a card holder notwithstanding the language that refers to the fifty dollars or to the statute of limitations all of that language is in the statute certainly for a reason but it doesn't mean that it has to create a right to reimbursement in a cardholder the fifty dollars threshold relates to the disputed amounts in the statute of limitations relates to causes of action that go to the disputed amounts so the statute as an intrinsic whole makes perfect sense as the court suggested section six hundred forty three only limits the cardholders liability it's text is clear and it gives the car holders the right when they see what they believe is unauthorized charge in excess of fifty dollars on their account not to pay it and that's a real remedy and it's a meaningful one and cardholders supposing mr martin we disagreed with you we agreed with you with regard to sixty forty three noticed a course of action but what if we disagree with you with regard to a parent authority well on the issue of let me come back that you disagree with us one sixteen forty three i agree with you sixteen forty three does not provide a private cause of marriage the issue of apparent authority would be irrelevant to the reimbursement action in that situation because the reimbursement for the charges she couldn't pursue that it's on the sixteen sixty six claim the billing error claim apparent authority would still be relevant if a parent authority is not present when see what's the amount controversy with regard to sixty sixty six billing error issue from our perspective inst the last two statements within the sixty day threshold potentially triggered by either the april seven letter or the april twentieth letter which would be february and march and that would be the limit of the controversy now we disagree that that such as the i don't know twenty thousand it is in that range why wasn't there a parent authority  own name actually it first of all in terms of the direct speaking with chase no i think that it was under his name was right you know right at the direct speaking with change is is a slight m distinction related to apparent authority from express authority or authorization from a card holder or implied authority in a parent if they were to by definition focuses on beyond expression and written direction and goes to any acts or conduct that put the agent in the position of possessing the authority and so you don't need to go to what chase might have said to the car holder and in fact in the cases that we rely on your honor the d b i case the minsk off case and the carrier case you won't find any communications between the card issuer and the car it's based on what mr a's or did and did not do in the reasonableness of chase's perception in response to that what did he do what affirmative act that he did well when we're looking bills to him for signature mr a's or enabled miss vanek and directed her to handle everything in connection with his bank statements mr as are directed miss vanek to handle all tasks related to the credit card statements mr a's are authorized miss vanek to deal with the credit card companies and mr a's are put in place a system that had her unmonitored and unsupervised and that conduct is direct corollary to the conduct that gave rise to apparent authority in the three cases in the three lead cases it's putting the fraudster in the position to deal with the company directly and enabling the fraud to occur that's the first piece of the inquiry now that it's never actually dealt with mr is or directly did it and that didn't happen in any of those other cases and that's the point that's the basic authority to withdraw one of those funds from billy the chase car yes and to pay out of my personal but your honor he put her in the position to do it and in that circumstance he cannot claim lack of knowledge that is what the concept of a parent authority is about because what you then turn around are in a position but he do with her eyes are to steal his when you know but he could have done something about it put yourself now in the second half of the inquiry in chase's position what happens with chase is for sixty five statements over seven years they are paid without dispute from the card holders checking account they make some inquiries they get identifying information about the card and the account activity is validated and nothing is a mess do you have anything at all for m in position to do that and that's the essential difference regarding apparent authority and i want to make this point again her authority to do what apparent authority to from chase perspective to act with respect to the account that either creates apparent authority on her behalf to make the charges and do what she did or it creates an a stop hole for mr adie's or to claim that mysteries are in gauged in that gives rise to the a stock will prong of it and there's no dispute about the reasonable miss chase's response given seven years of repeated payments with no dis from his own bank accounts and let me come back to t l again on the burden here the reason apparent authority is in teela and it doesn't just confine itself to express or implied authority is to put the burden on the card holder in these circumstances when the fraud is occurring to you to explain how they let it happen because from the perspective of the issue we're everything looks well he doesn't even know he has discovered but he does have the ability to do something about it and the burden here your honor was minimal but he did when he found out he did but the reason that he didn't find out is he in it can go to the dollar bank account that's the next step all he had to do was thumb through one month's worth of statements he says i didn't have a chase card or all he had to do minimally was put somebody in who monitor or audit our bank checks and the testimony is clear that even the bank couldn't tell it wasn't his signature now they say they were forgeries but from chase's perspective again all the account activity looked great does the record show how much activity what the record shows and as i stand here your honor i don't know the answer to that but the important thing there are of course is that from chase's perspective you had seven years of undisputed of payments from the card holder on the account and second of course that that account was something that he could easily have read in reviewed or authorized somebody to do it is there evidence on the record that he got monthly statements from dollar there is evidence in the record in fact that  he occasionally reviewed his bank statements but only intermittently again at his own election why because he trusted miss van ic to do it and i i would add again that the apparent authority in corinth like checks yes in other words he had access to that information and he could have detected that your honour's i i want to press the point that this is in light of the d b i the carrier and the mint's cough cases there are no material factual differences between this case and those all of which were doesn't name on the credit excuse me about the name on the credit card isn't there a difference well the credit card here was a continuation of his  in his name yes but those in the other cases the credit cards were in the name of the person who was misusing the they were they were both in actually i think your honor that makes our case that much stronger in the case where the secondary user puts themselves on the card again without authorization from the principal it's even less transparent to the i mean it's even easier for the card holder to detect that if they're paying attention what are they doing on that card here the first usa card morphed into the chase card all without any cancellation or problem on chases and payments continued and the activity was regular there was no opening of a secondary card or anything else it was a completely the same linear line and transparent to us is it your view i just want to understand your position that sixteen forty three  is permits the concept of a parent authority to bind someone simply because that person put an individual in a position where that individual and misuse a credit card yes when that is combined with the payment stream that we have here and the validation of the account when the contacts are made and the whole totality of the circumstances but absolutely apparent authority inquiry if mr van ik i mean if mr raiser had simply called chase and said it's not authorized that would stop but if he says it was authorized we wouldn't have a dispute so we're we're moving beyond any oral considerations and again indeed i in minsk off and in carrier you won't find those communications between the card issuer and the card holder that this whole thing is plugged the vi in carrier not only did the primary cardholder's know the card existed and were making charges on the card therefore they would be expecting the statements as you pointed out the agent was listed as a secondary user therefore it was reasonable for the card issuer to make at least try to make the argument of apparent authority because they knew they were dealing with an agent here chase is trying to argue we do know someone else was using the card but it's reasonable for us to believe that she had apparent authority as you're aware the agent's actions cannot create a parent thirty and that is all the chase knew about the agent's actions not mysteries  is the type of claim that the pennsylvania supreme court would let survive obviously the economic loss doctrine serves a purpose and normally that is to prevent unknown cleaners down the economic chain from suing it arose out of a can which was a  you you would be explicitly barred from a negligence claim we do not have a contract claim i mean is isn't a credit card based with the bank based on a contractual relationship it normally would be chase has been implied contract it has to be ratified by the parties mysteries or never did anything to ratify a contract which case it has always been his position i have no contract with you and if we find that there is a contract and how go forward under the rationale elicited in the right as well as the most recent case exhibition technologies all the rationale and the supreme court right sided with approval language from the south carolina supreme court that said