of Maryland(29) the FDIC, as receiver for the insured, sought recovery under Insuring Agreement E of a bankers blanket bond of various loan losses.
Lustig(30) the federal district court addressed the standard to be applied in determining when the insured "learned" of an employee's dishonest acts for purposes of termination of coverage under Section 12 of a bankers blanket bond.
of Maryland(34) the insured's successor in interest filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a construction of the termination clauses in a bankers blanket bond and a related excess employee dishonesty bond.
Citing Sections 7(a) and (b) of the bankers blanket bond, it held that the insurer was entitled to the insured's rights of recovery by assignment or subrogation only after the insurer made payment under the bond.
United Mercantile Bank(36) the plaintiff brought an action against a bank and its bankers blanket bond insurers for losses resulting from the dishonesty of a bank employee.
Lustig(37) the insured under a bankers blanket bond asserted statutory and common law claims of bad faith against the sureties for their alleged improper handling of the bond claim.
26) a purchaser of a failed bank sought recovery under two bankers blanket bonds for losses sustained in connection with 14 separate transactions.