Court Opinion

ID: 9684498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:59:11.202773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:56.462717
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I am in complete agreement with the disposition made by the *446majority of every facet of this case except Brooks Bank. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court as to Brooks Bank.
I am well aware of the onerous burden Brooks Bank had as movant and I am of the opinion that this Bank discharged its duty. I am convinced that the evidence shows as a matter of law that any action by Brooks Bank could not have been a “cause in fact” of the losses suffered by the two insurance companies.
The only charge made against Brooks Bank by the majority opinion is that it did not handle the two checks withdrawing the money from the insurance companies’ accounts in the normal course through banking channels. That is, that the money represented by these checks was negotiated directly through the Federal Reserve Bank, rather than being deposited directly into the Frost Bank. My answer is that, regardless of how the checks were handled, the full amount of money arrived at the Alvin Bank to the account of its rightful owners, the two insurance companies, and its diversion occurred after that point. Even though proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact, in my opinion, the lack of proximate cause has been established in this case as a matter of law.