Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

ChelseaDotCom:
Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

Provided its not yet registered in the computer, you're safe. If not, its your life or your money. you have to choose one without phoning a friend

Your money don va va voom!!

u can claim it was any reasonable amount...and as long as its not registered,it will stand as ur loss but i dont think robbers robb customers when they have d safe room to go loot out stacks of cash.

As far as the bank is concerned, if its not registered in their system and you have no concrete evidence (teller), your money is gone. However, if you are lucky enough to survive the incident with the cashier, you can lodge complain if she is truthful enough to admit receiving the money from you.



BTW op why u go de think that kind thought inside bank, thank God say thoughts are not visible o, people for de disappear from the bank

Haha!

On a serious note, you're on your own o

iCauseTrouble:

Provided its not yet registered in the computer, you're safe. If not, its your life or your money. you have to choose one without phoning a friend

What are you saying?

Once you are in the premises of the bank and a robbery occur. Dem take your cash. Dem no born the bank well if dem no give you your cash whether deposite or not.

It is the duty of the bank to protect their facility from attack.

wetdick:
Once you are in the premises of the bank and a robbery occur. Dem take your cash. Dem no born the bank well if dem no give you your cash whether deposite or not.

It is the duty of the bank to protect their facility from attack.

LIE. Don't deceive yourself, what if you bring 10k and you are claiming 100k?

If the money is not registered then the money is lost, remember the bank will loose much to the rubbers too. You are just a victim of circumstance

Clemercy2:


LIE. Don't deceive yourself, what if you bring 10k and you are claiming 100k?

ok oh.

Occupiers liability might work in a case like this


i am not a lawyer but did research on it.

ChelseaDotCom:
Hello guys, just thinking while I was in a bank standing on the queue to deposit; assuming I'm about to hand the money over to the cashier or cashier has collected the money but yet to register it on the computer...and a group of robbers just come in, shoot sporadically and rob people of their monies. Am I going to be paid back or am I part covered by the insurance?
Bankers and Lawyers in the house, I need you here.

That would be dependent on lots of facts. If the money is already deposited, the bank is 100% liable to pay back. Theoretically speaking, the bank will still be liable if the money hasn't been deposited but the customer could prove that he has the money with him before the robbery occurred. This is simply because the bank owed the customer a duty of care to prevent occurrence of robbery in its premises. The court would resort to evidence to hold the bank liable. I believe there is no straight-forward answer here. They may be liable, they may escape liability.

Still, the general rule is that the bank owe it's customers a duty to prevent occurrence of robbery in its halls/premises. The rule here is to do everything reasonable foreseeable to prevent the robbery from taking place.

As long as the teller hasn't collected the money from you and made the necessary records as proof. The bank hasn't received the money from, Even if you loose it in the banking hall,they bank holds no liability for your money.

Clemercy2:
If the money is not registered then the money is lost, remember the bank will loose much too

Noy really.

The bank won't pay a dime. This is because all deposits in banks are insured with the NDIC. NDIC is duty-bound by law to pay back. All the bank need prove is that they took measures reasonably foreseeable to prevent such incidents from occuring. The story would change if they were negligent and reckless.

You can sue under occupier liability.

wetdick:


ok oh.

I will refer you to a case salami vs savannah bank

i am not a lawyer but did research on it.

Perhaps you should read the entire case, paying attention to the court's decision. The facts of Salami Vs. Savannah Bank is quite different from the OP's post. The relevant question here is whether the bank owe it's customers a duty to prevent occurrence of robbery in its bank halls? And the answer is yes, provided the customer could prove that he has the money with him at the time the robbery occurred.

I'm surprised that people here are concerned with only what happens if the money hasn't been deposited. What if the customer made a withdrawal from his/her account and the robbers took the money right there in the bank hall? The bank is liable to pay back once there is evidence to prove that the money was stolen by the robbers. The bank's liability would stem from the duty owed to the customer to secure it's premises from robbery.

uchennamani:
That would be dependent on lots of facts. If the money is already deposited, the bank is 100% liable to pay back. Theoretically speaking, the bank will still be liable if the money hasn't been deposited but the customer could prove that he has the money with him before the robbery occurred. This is simply because the bank owed the customer a duty of care to prevent occurrence of robbery in its premises. The court would resort to evidence to hold the bank liable. I believe there is no straight-forward answer here. They may be liable, they may escape liability.

Still, the general rule is that the bank owe it's customers a duty to prevent occurrence of robbery in its halls/premises. The rule here is to do everything reasonable foreseeable to prevent the robbery from taking place.

I disagree sir,how will you prove you have a certain amount of money with you. What if everyone claims they came with N10m to deposit and it was stolen?
Unless you can prove beyond every reasonable doubt(which you won't be able to do),that you came in with such amount of money kiss your money good bye. Not everyone in the banking hall is there to deposit,how can you prove you weren't there to collect ATM card or check your balance etc?.
Every money the bank has is owned by someone(Capital) and owed to someone(Liability). When you deposit,you are owed,so they send you credit alert(creditor). When you withdraw,the money they owe you reduce,so they send you debit alert (debtor).
Your best assurance of having your money back is if it has been credited to your account,if not,it is just your words against the bank's. And believe me the bank will likely get away with it.

uchennamani:
Perhaps you should read the entire case, paying attention to the court's decision. The facts of Salami Vs. Savannah Bank is quite different from the OP's post. The relevant question here is whether the bank owe it's customers a duty to prevent occurrence of robbery in its bank halls? And the answer is yes, provided the customer could prove that he has the money with him at the time the robbery occurred.

I'm surprised that people here are concerned with only what happens if the money hasn't been deposited. What if the customer made a withdrawal from his/her account and the robbers took the money right there in the bank hall? The bank is liable to pay back once there is evidence to prove that the money was stolen by the robbers. The bank's liability would stem from the duty owed to the customer to secure it's premises from robbery.

so it means they can be sued under occuppier liability

wetdick:


so it means they can be sued under occuppier liability

Not really. Occupier's liability is relevant if a bank customer sustains physical injuries withing the bank hall. The bank owes it's customer a duty to make sure that it's hall are safe from danger. If you enter a bank hall and sustain a physical injury, the bank would be liable if it could be proved that the injury sustain wasn't due to the customer's recklessness and negligence.

Perhaps, you should go through my post again. This is a matter of evidence. The bank would be liable if the customer can prove he had the money with him, and the money was stolen by the robbers. This is a conditional statement. IF

Greatzeus:

I disagree sir,how will you prove you have a certain amount of money with you. What if everyone claims they came with N10m to deposit and it was stolen?
Unless you can prove beyond every reasonable doubt(which you won't be able to do),that you came in with such amount of money kiss your money good bye. Not everyone in the banking hall is there to deposit,how can you prove you weren't there to collect ATM card or check your balance etc?.
Every money the bank has is owned by someone(Capital) and owed to someone(Liability). When you deposit,you are owed,so they send you credit alert(creditor). When you withdraw,the money they owe you reduce,so they send you debit alert (debtor).
Your best assurance of having your money back is if it has been credited to your account,if not,it is just your words against the bank's. And believe me the bank will likely get away with it.

The customer would be liable to the strenght of the cash, intriguinly insurance only covers 2million naira on each cashier in most of the tier 1 banks. Funnily enough, Insurance company's are not father Christmas, insurance company's will only restore the insured back to its normal state but not more than the state it has attained hitherto

Come to think of it, what if the cash that the customer brought to the bank was counterfeit notes, and armed robber unknowingly cart away with it (as they dont have CV light to confirm it) you mean the bank will pay for it?... Wake up bro the bank aiint father xmas

If you have given your money to the teller, and your deposit slip has been handed over to you with bank stamp - if robbery occurred immediately just has you collected your slip, even without the money enter into the system, you are covered because the slip in your hand is evidence.

But if the reverse is the case, after handed over your money to the teller & before teller given you a copy of stamp slip & robbery occurred, that will be hard oo, because robber will just pack every money including yours, and there will be know evidence to prove your claimed after the incident

But CCTV can still help some of the claimed, to know who actually come with money to deposit & but can't detect the actual amount, as this is Nigeria, some people will increased figures.

uchennamani:
Not really. Occupier's liability is relevant if a bank customer sustains physical injuries withing the bank hall. The bank owes it's customer a duty to make sure that it's hall are safe from danger. If you enter a bank hall and sustain a physical injury, the bank would be liable if it could be proved that the injury sustain wasn't due to the customer's recklessness and negligence.

Thanks for your insight @ uchennamani, I want to believe that banks owe their customers a duty of care...if I wasn't in the bank, my money wouldn't have been stolen at that point. More so, what's the fate of those women who were tricked and robbed in the banking hall by some hoodlums who hang around the banking hall...there has been many cases like that, do you think they could have sued the banks for not protecting them enough? What say you @uchennamani?

uchennamani:
Not really. Occupier's liability is relevant if a bank customer sustains physical injuries withing the bank hall. The bank owes it's customer a duty to make sure that it's hall are safe from danger. If you enter a bank hall and sustain a physical injury, the bank would be liable if it could be proved that the injury sustain wasn't due to the customer's recklessness and negligence.

it also cover loss.

wetdick:


ok oh.

I will refer you to a case salami vs savannah bank

i am not a lawyer but did research on it.

In my final year in the uni, we did a course on law.
They are always referring to a case of someone vs someone.

As long as you haven't received a teller from the cashier it's your loss

bolinjkezzy:
In my final year in the uni, we did a course on law. They are always referring to a case of someone vs someone.

you are funny so you mean salami cant refer to savannah bank?
Are you for real.

Na ur loss be that.

They are not liable. When ur robbed in ur house or road who do u sue

interestingly, I had thought of this one time

Whilst I believe, under normal circumstances, The bank should pay for such damages. The circumstances in our nation are not normal

1. Dishonest people who'd lie about The exact amount of money stolen from them
2. Dishonest bank staff
3. Banks trying not to run at a Loss
4. Insurance firms who won't like to bite more than they can chew

Really, its an all out of game of maneuvers and shenanigans

Summarily, if the money wasn't logged in and don't you have a teller to prove. The money is gone!

Ok

The question should be what if I came to cash a cheque of 2million and as I collect my money I hear "Everybody lie down"!!!" and I get robbed in the bank premises, is the bank liable?