Robert Carter, an employee of National Accident Insurance, intercepted insurance premium checks totaling more than $10 million that customers made payable to the insurance agency. Carter then altered those checks by adding a slash (/) and additional payees, such as “Sherman” or “Sherman Imports, Inc.” These changes to the checks were made either in a different typewritten font or different handwriting than the other payee listed. After altering the checks, he endorsed and deposited the checks in his Sherman account at Citibank. After Citibank was taken to court for cashing the fraudulent checks, Citibank relied on the fictitious-payee rule, arguing that this was a situation in which the bank honors a check bearing the forged endorsement of a fictional payee. Thus, Citibank believes that the rule should relieve its liability and place the loss on the drawer of the checks. Do you think the fictitious-payee rule applies in this case? Would any additional information help you make your decision?