Chase accepted a deposit from a decedent’s estate and signed an acknowledgement of the court order establishing a blocked account requiring a court order for any withdrawal from the account.  The executrix was the sole authorized signer on the account.  After the executrix presented the bank with the court order approving her final account, the executrix withdrew and absconded with all the estate’s funds from the blocked account.  Held, Chase owed the estate’s attorneys a duty of care in disallowing withdrawals absent a court order.  The attorneys were principal beneficiaries of the court order blocking the account.  The bank’s acknowledgement of that order created a special relationship between the bank and the order’s beneficiaries, and the Biakanja factors weighed in favor of imposing a duty of care on the bank in this situation even though the attorneys were not bank customers.  Furthermore, the order approving the final accounting did not authorize release of any funds from the blocked account.  The bank should have insisted on an MC-358 (order authorizing withdrawal of funds from blocked account) before releasing the funds. The bank’s negligence in allowing the executrix to withdraw funds from the account was a substantial facor in causing the attorneys’ harm, and the bank could not escape liability by pointing to the executrix’s intentionally wrongful conduct since the blocked account order was designed to prevent that very foreseeable misconduct.