1. Stacy and Michael Russell are residents in Harrah, Oklahoma, who live in a trailer. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company was the insurer on the home. Within the Russells’ policy, a section on loss stated that Farm Bureau “will pay you unless another payee is named on the Declarations Page,” that “Loss shall be payable to any mortgagee named in the Declarations,” and that one of Farm Bureau’s responsibilities was to “protect the mortgagee’s interests in the insured building.” On the Declarations page of the document, Conseco Finance, which held a financial interest in the Russells’ home, was named as one of the “payees.” A fire completely charred the mobile home in late 2002. A $69,000 settlement amount was agreed on between Russell and Farm Bureau after an insurance claim was made. 
2. 
   
3. Conseco was not aware of the fire, nor did it know that a check had been made out to both Conesco and the Russells together to cover damages incurred in the fire. The Russells’ deposited the check into their account, with both of their signatures and a stamp from Conseco Finance, which is believed to have been forged, at the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK). The Bank of Nichols Hills (BNH) was the banking provider for the insurance company. About a year later, Conesco learned of the fire and contacted Farm Bureau about being owed more than $50,000, which was paid in full. BNH was notified of the forgery and reimbursed the insurance company for the $50,000. BNH then proceeded to sue BOK, claiming that carelessness was the reason the forgery occurred. 
4. Required

Who do you believe is at fault here on the basis of the information presented in the chapter? [Bank of Nichols Hills v. Bank of Oklahoma, 196 P.3d 984 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008).

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Stacy and Michael Russell are at fault in this case ... View the full answer