In January 2008, $243,000 was transferred from the account of William Ryder's account at the Universal City Studios Credit Union to a bank in Hong Kong. The credit union said someone who identified himself as Ryder called to change a telephone number supposedly associated with the account at the credit union. The caller identified Ryder's date of birth, Social Security number, mother's maiden name, and other account activity. Five days later, a wire transfer of funds from Ryder's line of credit to the Hong Kong account was received. After verification of the signature on the fax, the credit union called the new telephone number to verify the request from a person who said he was Ryder. The transfer was made. The credit union submitted a claim to its insurance company for the amount of the transfer. The insurance company refused to pay because the security agreement with the credit union required wire transfers to be made through a secure telephone number that had been in place for at least 30 days prior to the transfer request. Would a court decision allowing the credit union to collect advance any values important to market exchange?
[Universal City Studios Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, B226868, (2012).]