NewsNovember 14, 2001

WASHINGTON -- Victims of identity theft or other credit fraud cannot stretch a two-year deadline to sue companies that collect or spread bad information, even if the victims don't learn of the problem until it is too late, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday...

By Anne Gearan, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Victims of identity theft or other credit fraud cannot stretch a two-year deadline to sue companies that collect or spread bad information, even if the victims don't learn of the problem until it is too late, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

A southern California woman wanted to sue a credit reporting agency that she claimed allowed a deadbeat impostor to sully her good credit record. The impostor allegedly stole Adelaide Andrews' Social Security number and other personal information, and used it to apply for department store credit and cable TV.

At issue for the high court was when the time clock began to run. The court ruled 9-0 that the clock started when TRW Inc. passed on erroneous information, not when Andrews discovered the fraud.

The ruling, the first of the court's new term, said the deadline is clear under a federal law governing credit reporting. Changes would have to come from Congress, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

The court dealt a blow to ordinary consumers who have no reason to know they have been the victims of fraud until it may be too late to sue, said Frank Torres, legislative counsel for the nonprofit Consumers' Union.

"This woman had her identity stolen, things were charged in her name, it was up to her to catch it because the credit reporting agencies don't want to take that responsibility," Torres said. "She's stuck with it, even though this was not her fault."

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

TRW, which is no longer in the credit reporting business, maintained that it tried to fix Andrews' problems, and that she waited too long to sue.

Among other action Tuesday, the court:

Ruled 9-0 that the Postal Service was within its rights to fire a worker who was still challenging previous punishments. An appeals court will now review another part of her discipline claim.

Refused to reinstate a death sentence for an Oklahoma man. An appeals court ruled the judge should have made it clear to confused jurors that they had the option of sentencing Mark David Johnson to life imprisonment without parole.

Refused to consider a new trial for a Utah killer who claimed he got directions from God and homosexual spirits. Ronald Lafferty's lawyers claim he was not mentally fit for trial.

Ordered that former President Clinton's name be removed from the roster of lawyers approved for practice at the high court. Clinton asked to resign from the Supreme Court bar last week, rather than fight disbarment related to the Paula Jones sexual harassment investigation.

Story Tags

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!