In the case at bar, there is no relationship between Everest and CIBC giving rise to duties that are “distinct from and independent of” the duties CIBC owed to Del Cano pursuant to its engagement. The harm alleged to have been suffered is harm that is a “consequence of, and incidental to”, the damage alleged to have been suffered by Del Cano. In my view, the rule in Foss v. Harbottle applies to this claim.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.