Monthly statements
The court agreed with Gerber and held that UCC 4-406 "is not a statute of limitations, which requires a customer to actually file suit against a bank within the one-year period, but is merely a notice requirement, which must be satisfied in order for a customer to preserve the right to bring suit against the bank at a later time." UCC 4-406 "merely requires a customer to ‘discover and report' an unauthorized signature, or else be ‘precluded from asserting' liability against the bank." The section "does not require that suit be filed, nor does it state that an action ‘shall be commenced,'" but "only imposes on bank customers, who are in a better position to detect for-geries than bank personnel, a duty to notify a bank of an unauthorized signature in order to facilitate discovery and prevention of further wrongdoing." The court recognized, however, that "when a series of checks, rather than a single check, are alleged to have been improperly hon-ored by a bank, the proper application of [UCC 4-406] may serve to preclude a customer's re-covery on some checks, while allowing recovery on others, depending upon when bank state-ments are issued and when notice is given." (This case was decided before the revisions to Articles 3 and 4, but the result would likely be the same under those revisions.)