Case Problem:
Stacy and Michael Russell are residents in Harrah, Oklahoma, who live in a trailer. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mututal Insurance Company was the insurer on the home. Within the policy the Russells held with the insurance company, a section on loss stated: Oklahoma “will pay you unless another payee is named on the declarations page,” and “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, Conesco Finance, who held 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 upon between Russell and Oklahoma after an insurance claim was made. Conesco was not aware of the fi re nor that a check was made out to both Conesco and the Russells together to cover damages incurred in the fi re. The Russells deposited the check into their account, with both of their signatures and a stamp from Conesco Finance, which is believed to have been forged, into the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK). Bank of Nichols Hills (BNH) was the banking provider for the insurance company. About a year later, Conesco learned of the fire and then contacted Oklahoma Farm Bureau, stating that it owed more than $50,000, which was paid in full. BNH was notifi ed of the forgery and reimbursed the insurance company the $50,000. BNH then proceeded to sue BOK, claiming that carelessness was the reason the forgery occurred. Who do you believe is at fault here based on the information presented in the chapter? [Bank of Nichols Hills v. Bank of Oklahoma, 196 P.3d 984 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008).]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.