Attorney Profiles

Stephen Baskind has been practicing for more than 30 years and practices primarily in the Commercial Litigation area.  For many years, Stephen emphasized litigation involving financial institution bonds (including defending financial institutions), commercial fidelity bonds and insurance coverage issues involving fidelity policies as well as related bad faith claims.  Stephen's current commercial litigation practice now includes representation of banks, credit unions, insurers, businesses, individuals, and all types of commercial litigation such as:

• commercial and contract disputes
• uniform commercial code matters (articles 3 and 4)
• credit union and banking issues and related matters
• deceptive trade practices
• fidelity law
• legal professional malpractice defense 
• insurance issues

Stephen was selected as a "Texas Super Lawyer" in Business Litigation in the Texas Monthly Super Lawyers edition for 2008.

Representative Cases

Richardson Nat'l Bank v. Reliance Ins Co., 619 F.2d 557 (5^th Cir. 1980) represented a bank in litigation involving a banker's blanket bond regarding Insuring Agreement E and concerning allegedly "forged" manufacturer's statements of origin. 

First Nat'l Bank v. F&CNY, 634 F.2d 1000 (5^th Cir. 1981) represented a financial institution bond insurer regarding issues of discovery of loss and compliance with conditions precedent, including proof of loss.

Hixon v. Cox, 633 S.W.2d 330 ( Tex. App.--Dallas 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) represented the issuer of a check in case involving whether accord and satisfaction principles apply a check delivered in payment of a disputed debt.

Fidelity & Cas. v. First City Bank, 675 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1984, writ ref's n.r.e.) represented a bank in negotiable instrument case involving forged endorsements and application of the no interest payee rule of UCC section 3.405.

Charter Bank v. Evanston Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 379 (5^th Cir. 1986) represented a bank in a case involving coverage under a financial institution bond regarding allegedly "altered" certificates of deposit. 

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dahlen, 734 S.W.2d 729 ( Tex. App. Dallas 1987) represented a surety in suit against indemnitors regarding a miscellaneous bond and allegations of material alteration of underlying risk. 

McDowell v. Dallas Teachers Credit Union, 772 S.W.2d 183 ( Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, no writ) represented a credit union in a case involving forged checks and application of the repeater rule of UCC section 4.406.

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Capital Bank, 912 F.2d 756 (5^th Cir. 1990) represented a financial institution insurer in a case involving Insuring Agreement E regarding allegedly "counterfeit" stock certificates. 

Knights of Columbus Credit Union v. Stock, 814 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991, writ denied) represented a credit union in a case involving issues relevant to the notice of sale of collateral following default by the borrower. 

First Texas v. Reliance Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 1171 (5^th Cir. 1992) represented a financial institute bond insurer in a case involving the loan exclusion and allegations of insurer bad faith.

Matter of World Hospitality, 983 F.2d 650 (5^th Cir. 1993) represented a commercial fidelity bond insurer in a case involving issues relevant to the definition of "employee" and the "alter ego" defense.

American Airlines Emp. Fed. Credit Un. V. Martin, 29 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2000) represented a credit union in a case involving the validity of shortened notice provisions in an account deposit agreement as relevant to UCC section 4.406.

Buck v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 2003 WL 22860932 ( Tex. App.-- Corpus Christi 2003 , no pet.) represented lost stock bond surety and stock issuer in a matter involving lost stock certificates.

Borinski v. Williamson, 2004 WL 433746 (N.D. Tex. 2004) represented a credit union in a case involving issues relevant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Owens v. Comerica Bank,  229 S.W.3d 544 ( Tex. App.-- Dallas  2007 , no pet.)  represented bank in case involving deposit of $1.9 million of fraudulently deposited checks in which Court holds bank violated no duty to check issuer.

Sanders v. Comerica Bank, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) represented a bank regarding a dispute with subordinate security interest holder regarding the proper application of the proceeds from the sale of collateral following default and regarding the sufficiency of the applicable security agreement and financing statement.

Stephen L. Baskind

Seriously Outstanding

only 5% selected each year

visit superlawyers.com