dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I believe that one should read section 4 — 406 as a whole, considering all relevant parts in connection with every other section. Section 4 — 406(f) states as follows:
“Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within one year after the statement or items are made available to the customer (sub-section (a)) discover and report the customer’s unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or alteration.” Pub. Act 87— 1135, § 1, eff. September 17, 1992 (amending 810 ILCS 5/4 — 406(f) (West 1992)).
I believe that the legislature could have inserted “good faith” if it had wanted to do so. Since “good faith” was not included in section 4 — 406(f), I do not believe that we can require the bank to pay the items in “good faith” in order for the one-year period to apply.
I agree with the statement in Euro Motors, Inc. v. Southwest Financial Bank & Trust Co., 297 Ill. App. 3d 246, 696 N.E.2d 711 (1998), which stated:
“We agree with the majority of jurisdictions that section 4 — 406(f) is a rule of substantive law that creates a statutory prerequisite to filing suit. Failure to ‘discover and report’ an unauthorized signature within one year from the time the bank makes available to the customer a statement of account and accompanying items precludes the customer’s assertion of a claim against the bank.” Euro Motors, 297 Ill. App. 3d at 253.
In this case, the plaintiff did not discover and report unauthorized actions by Ms. Podmokly to the Bank within the one-year period; therefore, he is precluded from making any claim against the Bank in this case. That includes claims of “bad faith” or lack of “good faith” in paying the unauthorized checks. The burden falls on the customer to examine the bank statements. I would affirm.