own interests. Majority at 1342 — 13 (footnote omitted). Thus, the majority concludes that, under the facts as pleaded in this case, no viable independent tort claim exits under Florida law. Based upon the analysis of the pertinent law presented by the majority, I must agree. However, I do not read the majority’s opinion to negate or question the continuing vitality of the “free standing tort” exception to the D’Oench doctrine. Accordingly, I conclude that a well-pleaded, viable state law tort claim may still be pursued without the bar of D’Oench or the applicable federal statute discussed in the opinion. The fact that the tort claim arose out of the banking relationship should not prevent its prosecution. 9 See Barnett Bank of West Florida v. Hooper, 498 So.2d 923, 925 (Fla.1986) (<HOLDING>); Saglio v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp.,
holding that because the bank had no duty to report defendants structured transactions these transactions did not constitute material facts within the meaning of 18 usc  1001 consequently defendant may not be held criminally liable under 18 usc  2b for causing the bank to fail to disclose a material fact holding that under certain conditions a bank assumes a duty to disclose facts material to a transaction holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense