Jenkins v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
314 Ga. App. 257
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jenkins sued Wachovia Bank, N.A. and affiliates after a teller accessed his confidential information and gave it to her husband, who identity-thefted Jenkins; damages allegedly include credit harm and emotional distress.
- The Bank moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted as to all but the negligence claim.
- The appellate court reverses the judgment on the pleadings for the negligence claim, but affirms as to breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy claims.
- The GLBA imposes a duty to protect nonpublic personal information; OCGA § 51-1-6 allows damages for breach of a legal duty arising from such statutes.
- The court analyzes causation, noting the intervening unlawful act by a third party could be foreseeable and thus supports potential proximate causation; it also holds no confidential relationship with the Bank under the GLBA and rejects invasion of privacy arguments as to lack of duty or improper acts by employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does GLBA impose a duty to protect customer information? | Jenkins argues yes, GLBA creates a duty. | Bank contends GLBA imposes no duty without private right of action. | Yes, GLBA creates a duty to protect information. |
| Was there a breach of that duty by the Bank? | Bank failed to implement security and allowed unnecessary teller access. | Access to teller data is job-necessary; alleged failures not shown. | Yes, pleadings support breach under negligence and negligence per se. |
| Is the causation between breach and identity theft established? | Bank's breach proximately caused identity theft. | Intervening thief act breaks the causal chain; not foreseeable as a matter of law. | Causation cannot be decided as a matter of law; jury could resolve. |
| Does the GLBA create a confidential relationship giving rise to a duty to maintain confidentiality? | GLBA created a confidential relationship with Jenkins. | Bank-customer relationship generally not confidential; GLBA does not create such status. | No confidential relationship; no breach of confidentiality under GLBA. |
| Is Jenkins's invasion of privacy claim viable? | Bank intruded or disclosed private facts. | No intrusion, disclosure, or respondeat superior basis shown. | Invasion of privacy claim failed; judgment upheld on pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality, 289 Ga. 565 (2011) (establishes elements of negligence and duty framework)
- Wachovia Bank of Ga. v. Reynolds, 244 Ga.App. 1 (2000) (foreseeability in proximate causation when intervening acts occur)
- Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 228 Ga.App. 482 (1997) (intervening criminal acts and foreseeability in proximate cause)
- Doe v. Village of St. Joseph, Inc., 202 Ga.App. 614 (1992) (summary judgment where misconduct personal, unrelated to employment duties)
- Finnerty v. State Bank & Trust Co., 301 Ga.App. 569 (2009) (violation of statutes as evidence of legal duty in negligence actions)
- Groover v. Johnston, 277 Ga. App. 12 (2005) (negligence per se elements discussion)
- Morrell v. Wellstar Health System, 280 Ga.App. 1 (2006) (no fiduciary duty absent special trust/mutual confidence)
- Savu v. SunTrust Bank, 293 Ga.App. 683 (2008) (bank-customer relationship generally not confidential)