Plaintiff says that someone drilled a hole in her safety deposit box and took the money out

The plaintiff is suing Capital One bank, claiming that someone drilled a hole into her safe deposit box and took out all her money. She brings this case pro se, and the legal theory is that the bank was negligent in allowing this to happen. The case was dismissed at the district court under Rule 12 but the Court of Appeals revives the case.

The case is Henry v. Capital One, N.A., a summary order issued on June 16. The district court dismissed the case in part because "various exculpatory provisions in Capital One’s lease agreement for the safe deposit box immunized the bank from liability for loss of cash." In other words, the lengthy fine-print contract that Henry signed when she opened the safe had language that she probably never read and was not in a position to negotiate in any event. Under that provision, the bank is not liable for a variety of misconduct or other problems. 

The Court of Appeals says Henry may have a case, after all. The Court notes that "The lease agreement between Henry and Capital One provides that Capital One “will in no event be liable for alleged loss or
destruction of any cash claimed to have been placed in the Safe Deposit Box.” On its face, that language helps the bank. But, the Court says, public policy in New York “forbids a party’s attempt to escape liability, through a contractual clause, for damages occasioned by grossly negligent conduct.” In re Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 36 N.Y.3d 342, 352 (2020). And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the loophole that Henry needs to proceed with her case.

As the Court notes, "Henry’s complaint alleged that Capital One 'drilled open [her] safe deposit box without her notice or permission' and that she was told 'the contents were missing from the box.' Allegedly, none of the limited circumstances enumerated in the lease agreement that would have
allowed Capital One to 'force open' the safe deposit box was present here." If the bank drilled a hole into the safe deposit box, it would have been intentional. It therefore follows that the loss of any money could have been the result of gross negligence.