Court Opinion

ID: 9646341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:57:31.677587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:30.404370
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that the loss in question was not through any “dishonest or fraudulent” acts on the part of Mr. Bowers, the branch manager of the bank, within the meaning of coverage A of the fidelity provisions of the Banker’s Blanket Bond issued by defendant.
It is clear that the bank considered the Erb family’s longstanding account to be an excellent one. Mr. Bowers was so informed when he took over the branch as manager in 1965. Because of this, Erb enjoyed a special status with the bank and the evidence shows he took advantage of it.
This was a loss on a loan account of a favored customer that was simply allowed to get out of hand due to poor judgment and negligence on the part of the branch manager as well as other responsible officers of the bank. If what happened here is within coverage A, almost any bank loan account loss can be claimed to come under such coverage.
The leading case relied on by the majority herein in reaching its conclusion is Mortgage Corp. of New Jersey v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 19 N. J. 30 (1955). Aside from the fact that the employee’s misconduct in that case was much more grievous, it is a 4 to 3 decision by this Court. Without belaboring the point, I agree fully with Justice Heher’s legal argument in his dissenting opinion in that case. 19 N. J. at 42. I would affirm.
*86For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice Hughes, and' Justices Pashman, Clifford, Sohreibér and Handler — 5.
For affirmance — Justice . Sullivan — 1.