Duty of care
Martin v. Fifth Third Bank
Date: Aug. 5, 2026
Issue: Whether banks owe a duty of care to noncustomers.
Case Summary: ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of Illinois to reverse an Illinois appellate court ruling that held Fifth Third Bank owed a duty of care to a noncustomer.
As background, the no-duty rule generally prevents a plaintiff from holding a defendant liable for an injury when the defendant owed the plaintiff no legal duty of care. Without a legal duty, a negligence claim fails automatically, meaning there can be no breach of duty and no financial recovery for the injured party.
In February 2024, Marsha Martin sued Fifth Third Bank after losing more than $50,000 in an alleged fraud scheme. Martin alleged that, in February 2022, Joseph Valdivia hacked Coastal Custom Builders of NWFL’s email account and sent false instructions directing her to wire money from her Wells Fargo account to his Fifth Third Bank account. Valdivia then withdrew and transferred the funds. Martin claimed that Valdivia had previously used his Fifth Third Bank accounts to defraud others and that Fifth Third Bank knew about his conduct but failed to prevent further fraud. She alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligence claims against Valdivia and a negligence claim against Fifth Third Bank.
Fifth Third Bank moved to dismiss, arguing that it owed Martin no duty of care because she was not a customer. Judge Anthony C. Swanagan of the Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed the negligence claim, reasoning that Illinois law does not impose a duty of care on a bank to a noncustomer. On February 3, 2026, however, a unanimous panel of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed. The panel held that Illinois courts must determine whether a bank owes a duty to a noncustomer by applying the state’s traditional four-factor duty test rather than a categorical “no duty to noncustomers” rule drawn from federal cases. Fifth Third Bank appealed the panel’s decision.
In its brief, ABA urged the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the near-universal no-duty rule that, absent a special relationship, contractual obligation, or statutory duty, banks owe no duty of care to noncustomers. ABA argued that the vast majority of jurisdictions have held that banks owe no duty to noncustomers. ABA explained that courts across the country generally limit a bank’s duty of care to its own customers and reject negligence claims by third parties alleging a bank failed to monitor or stop a customer’s fraud. Illinois courts have also recognized that banks generally owe no duty of care to noncustomers. Imposing such a duty could expose banks to unlimited liability, interfere with customer privacy, slow transaction processing, raise costs, and disrupt normal banking operations. Along with this, noncustomers often have more control over the transaction and are better positioned to identify possible fraud.
ABA also argued that the national-consensus no-duty rule is consistent with Illinois negligence principles. Under Illinois law, courts determine whether a duty exists by considering the relationship between the parties, including the foreseeability and likelihood of injury, the burden of preventing the injury, and the consequences of imposing that burden. ABA maintained that banks generally lack a relationship with noncustomers that creates a duty of care. Imposing such a duty would expose banks to broad liability, force them to investigate accounts before processing transfers, delay transactions, and shift losses in ways that conflict with the Uniform Commercial Code and federal law. Although banks already spend significant resources fighting fraud, ABA noted that extending liability to noncustomers would increase costs, delay payments, and lead banks to block transactions or close accounts unnecessarily.
Bottom Line: ABA urged the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court and rule that banks generally owe no duty of care to noncustomers.
Document: Brief
