its knowledge, and not otherwise available to the customer. Id. at 925. Thus, the supreme court based the bank’s liability, even to its own customer, on the bank’s pecuniary interest in the transaction. Some courts have applied a limited exception to this rule and held banks liable for negligent misrepresentation of factual information regarding a customer’s creditworthiness. For instance, in Berkline Corp. v. Bank of Mississippi, 453 So.2d 699, 702 (Miss.1984), the court held that: Where a bank, through one of its duly authorized officers or agents, undertakes to supply credit information, arguably gratuitously, the bank and its officers are bound to use the skill and expertise which they hold themselves out to the public as possessing. There is ordina . 427, 514 P.2d 651, 654 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Florida applied this rule in Forbes v.
holding a bank liable where a bank officer held checks that were intended to pay the irs for withheld taxes holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check 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 holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank