D.J. Sartorio 
Jeffrey M. Alperin 

August 2007 



Los Angeles 


New York 

Orange County 


Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, LLP 
Attorneys At Law 

50 State Survey: Accountants’ 
Liability to Third Parties

Please note that statutes and case law vary from state to state and from time to time. This survey
does not encompass all possible exceptions to statutes and it does not discuss all possible case
law variations. In addition, choice of law rules may impact the result in certain cases.

Tressler LLP | Copyright ©2007 
Contributed by:  D.J. Sartorio and Jeffrey Alperin.  D.J. may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4093 and Jeffrey 

may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4172



Public accountants owe their clients a legal and contractual duty of due care.
Accountants may also owe a duty of due care to third parties who rely on their work. The courts
have adopted different standards for determining when such a duty exists. Below is a description
of each standard, followed by appendices identifying the standard applied by each state.1

1. Privity:

a. Traditionally an accountant could not be held liable in contract or tort (e.g.
negligence) to a third party with whom accountant was not in privity of contract.

b. Accountant’s duty of care only extends to parties in contractual privity with


2. Near Privity:

a. Modifies the privity doctrine to include others whose relationship with the

accountant approaches privity.

b. Requirements:

(1) Accountant knew the financial statements were to be used for a
particular purpose;

(2) Accountant intended that a known third party rely; and

(3) Accountant’s actions were connected to the third party, demonstrating

accountants’ knowledge of that party’s reliance.2

c. Demanding standard because a casual connection is insufficient to link accountant
to third party as required.3

1 Accountants may also be liable to third parties for fraud, regardless of the standards described herein, if there is
fraudulent intent and detrimental reliance. See e.g., Joel v. Weber, 569 N.Y.S.2d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991); Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leahey Const. Co., 219 F.3d 519 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000); Dougherty v. Zimbler, 922 F. Supp. 110
(N.D. Ill. 1996); Curiale v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 630 N.Y.S.2d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995); Howard v.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 220 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975); Stephens Indus., Inc. v. Haskins & Sells, 438 F.2d 357
(Colo. Ct. App. 1971).
2 Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 438 N.E.2d 110 (N.Y. 1985).
3 William Iselin & Co. v. Mann Judd Landau, 522 N.E.2d 21 (N.Y. 1988)

Tressler LLP | Copyright ©2007 
Contributed by:  D.J. Sartorio and Jeffrey Alperin.  D.J. may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4093 and Jeffrey 

may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4172


(1) Most parties not in actual privity of contract with the accountant will not
meet the standard because it requires proof that:

(a) Accountant’s words or actions were directed towards the third

party; or

(b) Something in the client’s employment itself established a nexus

approaching privity with the third party.4

(2) In most cases the accountant will not have communicated directly with
the third party and thus the employment will, at best, be only
incidentally for the purpose of inducing the third party to extend credit
to, invest in, or transact business with the client.5

d. Third party must establish that it is an intended beneficiary of the accountant’s

employment by the client. This can be established by evidence that the primary
purpose of the accountant’s engagement was:

(1) To prepare financial statements, reports, or opinions for the use of the

third party; or

(2) To be available on an ongoing basis to answer third party’s questions

regarding the client’s financial statements or condition or regarding the
accountant’s opinion.6

e. A complaint alleging the following states a cause of action under this standard:

(1) Accountant was aware the financial statements would be used in
connection with a particular transaction;

(2) Accountant was a key advisor to the client regarding the transaction; and

(3) Accountant has repeated direct communications with the third party

regarding the client’s financial position.7

3. Restatement § 552:8

a. Currently represents the majority view.

b. Provides that “one who supplied information during the course of his business,

profession, employment, or in any transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest

4 Westpac Banking Corp. v. Deschamps, 484 N.E.2d 1351 (N.Y. 1985)
5 Dan L. Goldwasser and M. Thomas Arnold, Accountants’ Liability, (Prac. Law Inst. 2001).
6 Sec. Pacific Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 597 N.E.2d 1080 (N.Y. 1992).
7 Dept. of Econ Dev. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 924 F. Supp. 449 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
8 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 552 (1977).

Tressler LLP | Copyright ©2007 
Contributed by:  D.J. Sartorio and Jeffrey Alperin.  D.J. may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4093 and Jeffrey 

may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4172


has a duty of reasonable care and competence to parties who rely upon the
information in circumstances in which the maker was manifestly aware of the use
to which the information was to be put and intended that it be so used.”9

c. Accountant’s liability extends to a foreseeable person or limited class of persons

for whom the information was intended, either directly or indirectly, even if the
identity of the person is unknown.10

d. Reliance must be actually foreseen.11

(1) For example, accountant supplies information to a third party or limited

class of third parties; or

(2) Accountant knows the recipient of the information intends to supply it to

the third party or limited class of third parties.12

e. Courts look to the purpose for which the accountant’s financial statement was
made to determine whether the third party’s reliance is justifiable.

(1) Accountant must have made the statement to induce the third party to

rely upon it.13

(2) Accountant is not liable absent actual knowledge of the use of the


(3) Liability to third party is more likely if accountant supplied information

directly to the third party.15

(4) Third party must rely on the actual statement and not a secondhand
report of the same.16

f. Accountant may limit liability by disclaimer alerting parties not in privity that

they rely at their peril.

9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Goldwasser and Arnold, supra note 5.
12 Id.
13 Id. If this cannot be shown there will be no liability in the absence of privity, willfulness, physical harm or
property damage
14 Nycal Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, 688 N.E. 2d 1368 (Mass. 1998); But cf. Arthur Andersen LLP v.
Superior Court, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 879 (Cal. App. 1998) (accountants, in the business of auditing insurance
companies, charged with knowledge of law pertaining to insurance company audits and, thus, that financial
statements would be furnished to Insurance Commissioner).
15 First Fla. Bank, N.A. v. Max Mitchell & Co., 558 So. 2d. 9 (Fla. 1990).
16 Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, 367 S.E.2d 609 (N.C. 1988).

Tressler LLP | Copyright ©2007 
Contributed by:  D.J. Sartorio and Jeffrey Alperin.  D.J. may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4093 and Jeffrey 

may be reached at [email protected] or 312‐627‐4172


g. Accountant has a duty to those whose reliance is actually foreseen, even if the
specific identity of the person(s) is not known.

4. Foreseeability:

a. Accountant is liable to all third parties whose reliance upon accountant’s
negligently prepared financial statement is reasonably foreseeable.17

b. Unlike the Restatement standard, the third party need not be a person or one of a

class of persons whose reliance was actually foreseen by the accountant.

c. Creates broad potential liability and thus several courts have established limits.

For example: Accountant not liable for a foreseeable injury if there is a strong
public policy reason for denying recovery.18

5. Statute:

a. Several states have enacted statutes limiting the civil liability of accountants
resulting from the negligent preparation of financial reports or statements.19

b. For example, legislation in Illinois, Arkansas, Michigan, and Utah provides that

an accountant will not be held liable in negligence to persons not in privity if the
accountant sends a letter to the client identifying only those persons he or she
intends to rely on the services; the accountant will only be liable to the identified
persons and to those in privity.20

17 H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 461 A.2d 138 (N.J. 1983).
18 Citizens Nat’l Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co., 335 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1983); See also, Rosenblum, supra note 17 at
153 (institutional investor who does not obtain audited statements directly from company may not recover from its
accountant); Touche Ross & Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 514 So. 2d 315, 322-23 (Miss. 1987) (accountant
“remains free to limit the dissemination of his or her opinion through a separate agreement with the audited entity.”).
19 See Appendices I and II.
20 See Appendix I for citations of statutes.



(Alphabetically by State)


Alabama Restatement § 522 Boykin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 639 So. 2d 504
Ala. 1994).

Alaska Restatement § 522 Selden v. Burnett, 754 P. 2d 256 (Alaska 1988).

Arizona Restatement § 552 Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 945
P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

Arkansas Statute similar to
near privity
(accountant can limit
liability by letter)

Swink v. Ernst & Young, 988 S.W.2d 660 (Ark
1995); Ark. Stat. Ann. §§16-114-302,17-12-701.

California Restatement § 552 Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 834 P.2d 745 (Cal.

Colorado Privity Stephens Indus., Inc. v. Haskins & Sells, 438 F.2d
357 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971).

Connecticut Near Privity Twin Mfg. Co. v. Blum, Shapiro & Co., 602 A. 2d
1079 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991).

Delaware None specified to

District of

None specified to

Florida Restatement § 552 First Fla. Bank, N.A. v. Max Mitchell & Co., 558
So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1990).
NationsBank, N. A. v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP,
813 So. 2d 964 (Fla.App. 2002)

Georgia Restatement § 552 Badische Corp. v. Caylor, 356 S.E.2d 198 (Ga.

Hawaii Restatement § 552 Kohala Agric. V. Deloitte & Touche, 949 P.2d 141
(Haw. Ct. App. 1997).


Idaho Near Privity Idaho Bank & Trust Co. v. First Bancorp, 772 P.2d
720 (Idaho 1989).

Illinois Statute (accountant
can limit liability by

Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. Chap. 225, § 450/30.1.

Indiana Near Privity Toro Co. v. Krouse, Kern & Co., 827 F.2d 155 (7th
Cir. 1987).

Iowa Restatement § 552 Eldred v. McGladrey, Hendrickson & Pullen, 468
N.W.2d 217 (Iowa 1991).

Kansas Statute (similar to
near privity)

Kan. Stat. Ann § 1-402.

Kentucky Restatement §552 Ingram Indus., Inc. v. Nowicki, 527 F. Supp. 683
(E.D. Ky. 1981).

Louisiana Restatement § 552 First Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Monco Agency
Inc., 911 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir.1990).

Maine Restatement § 552 Bowers v. Allied Inv. Corp., 822 F. Supp. 835 (D.
Me. 1993).

Massachusetts Restatement § 552 Nycal Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, 688 N.E.
2d 1368 (Mass. 1998).

Maryland Near Privity PPM America, Inc. v. Marriott Corp., 820 F. Supp.
970 (D. Md. 1993).
Walpert, Smullian & Blumenthal, P.A. v. Katz, 762
A.2d 582 (Md. 2000)

Michigan Statute (accountant
can limit liability by

Restatement § 552

M.C.L.A. § 600.2962.

Law Offices of Lawrence J. Stockler, P.C. v. Rose,
436 N.W. 2d 70 (Mich. App. 1989).

Minnesota Restatement § 552 NorAm Inv. Servs., Inc., v. Stirtz, Bernards, Boyden,
Surdel & Larter, 611 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. App.

Mississippi Foreseeability MidAmerican Bank & Trust Co. v. Harrison, 851
S.W.2d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) Touche Ross &


Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 514 So. 2d 315
(Miss. 1987).

Missouri Restatement § 552 Mark Twain Plaza Bank v. Lowell H. Listrom &
Co., 714 S.W. 2d 859 (Mo. App. 1986).
MidAmerican Bank & Trust Co. v. Harrison, 851
S.W.2d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)

Montana Near Privity Thayer v. Hicks, 793 P.2d 784 (Mont. 1990).

Nebraska Restatement §552


St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Touche Ross &
Co., 507 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 1993).

Citizens Nat. Bank of Wisner v. Kennedy and Coe,
441 N.W.2d 180 (Neb. 1989).

Nevada Privity Eikelberger v. Rogers, 549 P.2d 748 (Nev. 1976).

New Hampshire Restatement § 552 Spherex, Inc. v. Alexander Grant & Co., 451 A.2d
1308 (N.H. 1982).
Demetracopoulos v. Wilson, 640 A.2d 279 (N.H.

New Jersey Statute similar to
near privity


N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 53A-25.

H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, 461 A.2d 138 (N.J.

New Mexico None specified to

New York Near Privity

Parrott v. Coopers & Lybrand, 741 N.E.2d 506
(N.Y. 2000).

North Carolina Restatement § 552 Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert &
Holland, 367 S.E. 2d 609 (N.C. 1988).
Marcus Bros. Textiles, Inc. v. Price Waterhouse,
LLP, 513 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 1999)

North Dakota None specified to

Ohio Restatement § 552 Haddon View Inv. Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 436
N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1982).
Fed. Mgt. Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 738 N.E.2d


842 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

Oklahoma Foreseeability Stroud v. Arthur Andersen, 37 P.3d 783 (Okla.

Oregon Restatement §552 U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Fought, 630 P. 2d 337
(Or. 1981).

Pennsylvania Privity Pell v. Weinstein, 759 F. Supp. 1107 (M.D. Pa.

Rhode Island Restatement § 552 Forcier v. Cardello, 173 B.R. 973 (D. R.I. 1994).

South Carolina Restatement § 552 ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte &
Touche, 489 S.E. 2d 470 (S.C. 1997).

South Dakota None specified to

Tennessee Restatement § 552 Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 822
S.W.2d 592 (Tenn. 1991).

Texas Restatement § 552 Scottish Heritable Trust v. Peat Marwick Main &
Co., 81 F.3d 606 (5th Cir.1996).

Utah Statute (accountant
can limit liability by

Restatement §552

Utah Code Ann. § 58-26-12.

Milliner v. Elmer Fox & Co., 529 P.2d 806 (Utah

Vermont Restatement § 552 Nordica USA, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 839 F.
Supp. 1082 (D. Vt. 1993).

Virginia Privity Ward v. Ernst & Young, 435 S.E.2d 628 (Va. 1993).

Washington Restatement §552 ESCA Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 959 P.2d 651
(Wash. 1998).

West Virginia Restatement § 552 Costa v. Neimon, 366 N.W.2d 896 (Wis. Ct. App.


1985) First Nat’l Bank v. Crawford, 386 S.E.2d 310
(W. Va. 1989).

Wisconsin Foreseeability Citizens Nat’l Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co., 335
N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1983).
Costa v. Neimon, 366 N.W.2d 896 (Wis. Ct. App.

Wyoming Statute similar to
near privity

Wyo. Stat. § 33-3-201.


(Organized by Standard)







New York








New Hampshire
North Carolina


Rhode Island
South Carolina



West Virginia




New Jersey*



New Jersey



District of Columbia

New Mexico
North Dakota
South Dakota

* State governed also by statute.



233 S. Wacker Drive
22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606
T: 312.627.4000
F: 312.627.1717

One Penn Plaza
Suite 4701

New York, NY 10119
T: 646.833.0900
F: 646.833.0877

18100 Von Karman Ave
Suite 800

Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949.336.1200
F: 949.752.0645

305 W. Briarcliff Road
Suite 201

Bolingbrook, IL 60440
T: 630.759.0800
F: 630.759.8504

7744 Broad Street
Suite 1510

Newark, NJ 07102
T: 973.848.2900
F: 973.623.0405

1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 450

Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: 310.203.4800
F: 310.203.4850

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via + 1 929 473-0077

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code GURUH