By incorporating these claims by reference, Mrs. Stadnyk raised these tort claims against Bank One. In addition, Mrs. Stadnyk alleged in her First Amended Complaint that Bank One breached its fiduciary duty of care by improperly and negligently marking her check “NSF” for insufficient funds. Kentucky’s banking statutes recognize elements of both contract and tort law in the bank-depositor relationship. Under Kentucky law, banks are required to exercise good faith and ordinary care in the handling of customer accounts, thereby incorporating common law rules of negligence. See Bullitt County Bank v. Publishers Printing Co., 684 S.W.2d 289, 291-92 (Ky. Ct.App.1984); Pulliam v. Pulliam, 738 S.W.2d 846, 849 (Ky.Ct.App.1987); American Nat’l Bank v. Morey, 113 Ky. 857, 69 S.W. 759, 760 (1902) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, under Kentucky law, arrest is a
holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank 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 recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank recognizing claim against bank receiver