Company gets new chance in suit against Huntington

A local business is getting a second chance to recover losses from four bogus checks that were cashed by its bank, Huntington Bancshares.

Majestic Building Maintenance of Powell sued the bank in 2015 after it wouldn’t repay the $3,973.96 that the company lost from the checks.

The U.S. District Court in Columbus dismissed the case, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it last week.

“It is a very pro-consumer decision. We’re thankful the court came out with it,” said attorney Troy Doucet, who filed the case on behalf of Majestic.

The ruling reinstates the case and gives Doucet the opportunity to show that Huntington is trying to avoid responsibility for fraudulent checks unless customers buy protection services. Doucet said the case could eventually involve thousands of customers throughout Huntington’s Midwest footprint.

Huntington declined to comment.

Majestic President Luther McNeil opened the business checking account with Huntington in 2010, according to the appeals court ruling.

After opening the account, McNeil ordered hologram checks from a third party as a way to protect against fraudulent activity on his account.

When McNeil opened the account, he was not given a signed copy of the agreement for rules and regulations on the account.

A section of those rules states that the bank offers products designed to detect or prevent unauthorized transactions. The rules state that a customer who doesn’t take advantage of these products assumes the liability for any losses such products were designed to prevent.

The section did not outline the cost of those products or what the products would do.

Within a day of discovering the fraud in 2014, McNeil contacted the bank and asked to be reimbursed. The bank refused, citing McNeil’s decision to not sign up for the bank’s fraudprotection services.

The U.S. District Court in Columbus dismissed the case in November, but the appeals court said doing so at this point is premature.

“The contested provision does not specify the types of products offered, what type of fraud would be prevented and/ or discovered, how an account becomes eligible, whether the customer’s account is eligible, or how much the products would cost the customer,” the appeals court said.

Majestic argued that Huntington attempted to “absolve itself of its duties to exercise ordinary care and act in good faith” by putting the provision in the agreement, the appeals court said.

The court said it is not making a decision on the merits of the case.