|
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The following text is adapted from (this CRS report ), a document in the public domain. ==Background== The plaintiff in TRW v. Andrews was a victim of identity theft. An imposter, who had the same last name and first initial as the plaintiff, obtained Andrews’ social security number and attempted to open numerous credit accounts under the imposter’s name. On four occasions, the creditors responding to the impostor’s applications sought reports from TRW, a credit reporting agency. TRW matched the social security number, last name, and first initial with Andrews’ file and disclosed her credit history to the creditors. Andrews did not learn of the disclosures until she attempted to refinance her home and requested a copy of her credit report, which reflected the impostor’s activity. TRW corrected Andrews’ file when notified of the mistakes. However, Andrews alleged that the blemishes on her credit report “forced her to abandon her refinancing efforts and settle for an alternative line of credit on less favorable terms.”〔122 S. Ct. 445〕 Andrews filed suit against TRW on October 21, 1996, approximately 17 months after she became aware of the inaccurate information on her credit report and more than two years after TRW made the two initial disclosures.〔Id.〕 Andrews alleged that TRW’s failure to verify, prior to disclosing information to creditors, that she initiated the requests or was otherwise involved in the underlying transactions was in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s requirement that credit reporting agencies maintain reasonable procedures to avoid improper disclosures.〔Id. Not relevant to the Supreme Court’s opinion was an additional claim by Andrews that TRW failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in the reports, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). This claim was resolved by a jury in favor of TRW. Id at 446, note 3.〕 By failing to verify that Andrews was the initiator of the requests, Andrews alleged that TRW facilitated the identity theft. She sought injunctive relief, punitive damages and other compensation. TRW argued that Andrews’ claims based on the two earliest disclosures were barred because the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s two year statute of limitations had expired.〔122 S. Ct. at 446.〕 Andrews countered that all of her claims were timely because the statute of limitations did not toll until the date she learned of the inaccurate disclosures. This argument was based upon Andrews’ contention that the FCRA incorporated a general federal rule which tolls the statute of limitations at the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury. The District Court agreed with TRW, and held that a general federal discovery rule was not incorporated into the Fair Credit Reporting Act, thus barring Andrews’ claims based on the two earliest disclosures.〔Andrews v. Trans Union Corp., 7 F. Supp.2d 1056, 1066-1067 (CD Cal. 1998).〕 The District Court also granted TRW’s motion for summary judgment on the two remaining claims, finding that TRW had maintained adequate procedures to avoid improper disclosures.〔7 F. Supp.2d at 1068-1071.〕 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, applying the “general federal rule . . . that a federal statute of limitations begins to run when a party knows or has reason to know that she was injured.”〔Andrews v. TRW, 225 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2000).〕 The Ninth Circuit rejected the District Court’s assertion that the text of 15 U.S.C. 1681p, including the exception to the commencement of the statute of limitations, precluded the application of general federal discovery rules, holding that “unless Congress has expressly legislated otherwise the equitable doctrine of discovery is read into every federal statute of limitations.”〔225 F.3d at 1067.〕 The court concluded that since the Fair Credit Reporting Act contained no express legislative directive the general rule applied, thus the statute of limitations had not expired on any of Andrews’ claims.〔Id. at 1066.〕 TRW appealed to the Supreme Court 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「TRW Inc. v. Andrews」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|