not create a dispute of material fact as to whether Brittain intentionally disregarded NCB policy. Even construing White’s tes timony in the FDIC’s favor, it only speaks to Brittain’s frame of mind when confronted two years later about the irregularities surrounding the Orchard Road closing. It does not controvert the FDIC’s own averments and testimony that Brittain intentionally disregarded NCB policy at closing. The FDIC’s argument that Exclusion H is invoked only if Brittain had actual knowledge of the forgery and intentionally misled NCB at closing is unavailing. Brittain disregarded NCB’s specific instructions to close the Orchard Road loan according to the terms of the loan approval. This is sufficient to find that his conduct “caused” the loss. See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 (<HOLDING>). Cincinnati need not show that Brittain was a
holding an employee caused a banks loss under exclusion h where he instructed his subordinates to ignore bank procedures holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank holding loss was caused by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation holding that the fdic may rely on erroneous bank records to determine whether there was an insured deposit at the time of the banks failure holding that fact another banks name appeared on credit application signed by debtor did not controvert plaintiff bank employees affidavit asserting ownership on behalf of plaintiff bank