SAFE DEPOSIT RESTRICTIONS? Public Deposited
The E-Sylum: Volume 9, Number 6, February 5, 2006, Article 20
SAFE DEPOSIT RESTRICTIONS?
Joe Boling writes: "In response to your piece about restrictions
on release of items from safe deposit boxes in the event of a
natural disaster: customers of Washington Mutual (who follow
the rules) won't have to contend with those restrictions - they
will not have any of the restricted monetary items in their boxes
when the disaster strikes. I cite my 29 December 2003 submission
to the MPC gram (which I see now was never published)."Remember my bank that does not use cash? They have recently
taken another step down the road of non-service, with the
publication of new rules, including: "Effective immediately,
safeboxes shall not be used for the storage of coin or currency."
I called the telephone banking number to check this out. What
they call safeboxes are, indeed, what the rest of the world
calls safe deposit boxes. When I asked the reason for the rule,
I was given a runaround that seemed to center on liability.
Well, guess what - the bank is already not liable for anything,
and they also have a rule limiting their non-liability to $10,000.
The contract for a box specifically tells the renter to acquire
separate insurance. I then asked why jewels, stamps, sports cards,
and other such items were considered OK, but not coins and notes.
No reply. She promised to have the rule makers respond; so far,
they have not. [And two years later I am still waiting.] If you
are a Washington Mutual user, I recommend that you lodge strong
objections to this asinine policy, and if not satisfied, remove
accounts from WAMu. I am waiting to see what they have to say
in writing (if anything) to my telephone query."Their issues might revolve around drug money, but they won't
say so. In the absence of any intelligent rationale for this
stupid rule, the boards of three numismatic organizations for
which I am treasurer directed that their funds be moved to a
less idiotic bank. WAMu lost deposits of over $100,000 because
of their absolutely ludicrous policy. - which remains in effect."- 2006-02-05
- 9