TRW Inc. v. Andrews
534 U.S. 19 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act begins to run when the statutory violation occurs, not when the consumer discovers the injury. The Act's explicit inclusion of a narrow discovery rule for cases of willful misrepresentation precludes courts from implying a general discovery rule for all other violations.
Facts:
- On June 17, 1993, Adelaide Andrews provided her personal information, including her Social Security number, on a new patient form at a radiologist's office.
- A receptionist at the office, Andrea Andrews (the Impostor), copied Adelaide Andrews' information.
- The Impostor moved to Las Vegas and used Andrews' Social Security number to apply for credit on numerous occasions.
- In response to credit inquiries initiated by the Impostor, TRW Inc. furnished Adelaide Andrews' credit file to a bank on July 25, 1994, and a cable company on September 27, 1994.
- TRW also furnished Andrews' file to two other entities on October 28, 1994, and January 3, 1995.
- Adelaide Andrews was unaware of these disclosures until May 31, 1995, when she received a copy of her credit report while attempting to refinance her home mortgage.
- The blemishes on her credit report allegedly caused Andrews emotional distress and forced her to accept a less favorable line of credit.
Procedural Posture:
- Adelaide Andrews filed suit against TRW Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- TRW moved for partial summary judgment, arguing claims based on the July and September 1994 disclosures were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for TRW on those claims, holding that the statute does not incorporate a general discovery rule.
- Andrews, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, with TRW as the appellee, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a general discovery rule applies to federal statutes of limitations unless Congress has expressly stated otherwise.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to TRW to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act's two-year statute of limitations, which commences on 'the date on which the liability arises,' incorporate a general discovery rule that tolls the limitations period until the plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations does not incorporate a general discovery rule; the limitations period begins when the liability arises, which is when the violation occurs. The text and structure of § 1681p demonstrate Congress's intent to preclude judicial implication of a general discovery rule by providing a single, specific exception for discovery in cases of a defendant's willful misrepresentation. Applying the statutory interpretation principle of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius,' the explicit inclusion of one discovery-based exception implies the exclusion of others. Furthermore, judicially imposing a general discovery rule would render Congress's explicit and more limited exception superfluous, violating the cardinal principle that statutes should be construed to give effect to every clause and word.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The judgment should be reversed because the standard, traditional rule for statutes of limitations is that the period commences when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, not when the injury is discovered. The injury-discovery rule is a modern deviation from this principle, applicable only in narrow circumstances like fraud or latent disease, and should not be presumed to apply. Congress operates against the background of the traditional rule and knows how to explicitly legislate a discovery rule when it intends for one to apply. The Court should have been explicit in affirming that the 'occurrence rule' is the default, rather than expressing reluctance to decide the issue, which creates uncertainty for other federal statutes.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and establishes a strict 'occurrence rule' for the FCRA's statute of limitations, placing a greater burden on consumers to monitor their credit reports. The Court's reasoning reinforces the statutory interpretation principle that a specific, narrow exception in a statute weighs heavily against implying a broader, more general one. The ruling effectively limits the timeframe for consumers to seek redress for credit reporting errors, as the two-year clock can expire before a victim is even aware of an improper disclosure. This puts the onus on Congress to explicitly include a general discovery rule if it wishes to provide greater protection for consumers in future legislation.
Unlock the full brief for TRW Inc. v. Andrews