it does not purport to bar an action against a bank. Rather, it simply precludes a customer from asserting a forgery or alteration against the bank if the customer has failed to discover and report the forgery or alteration to the bank. Id. Section 4406 codifies and adds specificity to duties that have long been imposed upon a customer with respect to a payor bank, which is the depositor’s own bank. Id. This statute imposes a duty on a customer to examine a bank statement (if the bank provides one) to determine that “items paid” are properly charged against the customer’s account. See § 4406(a); Edward Fineman Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1110, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 482-83 (1998); Story Road Flea Market v. Wells Fargo Bank, 42 Cal.App.4th 1733, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 524 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Roy Supply, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d at 317; Sun‘n
holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding that an insurance company may have assumed a duty to defend a customer against a tort claim falling outside the scope of the customers insurance contract where a claims person  told the customer over the telephone that the insurer would take care of it and the insurer shortly thereafter hired a lawyer to represent the customer holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer holding under pre1990 version of  4406f that it precluded the customer from asserting that certain checks were forged because the customer failed to discover the forgeries and notify the bank timely holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation