Each Republication is a Separate Tort: Hyde and Luster

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Each Republication is a Separate Tort: Hyde and Luster

Post by David A. Szwak »

Each transmission of a consumer's credit report is a separate and distinct tort to which a separate statute of limitation applies, under FCRA. [u7c][b7c]Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank in Jefferson Parish[/b7c][/u7c], 861 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, [u7c][b7c]Credit Bureau Services - New Orleans v. Hyde[/b7c][/u7c], 109 S.Ct. 3199, 491 U.S. 910, 105 L.Ed.2d 706.

Defendant, who defames plaintiff, is liable for the harm from the initial reporting and any and all republications which were reasonably foreseeable. [u7c][b7c]Luster v. Retail Credit Co.[/b7c][/u7c], 575 F.2d 609 (8th Cir. 1978) [Ark.].
David A. Szwak
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Post by David A. Szwak »

Also, see Whitesides v. Equifax 125 F.Supp.2d 807 and 812 [WD La.] and Acton v. Bank One Corp., 293 F.Supp.2d 1092, D.Ariz., Nov 07, 2003
David A. Szwak
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Tennessee law

Post by David A. Szwak »

Swafford v. Memphis Individual Practice Ass'n
Not Reported in S.W.2d, 1998 WL 281935
Tenn.App.,1998.

Citing Hyde with approval
David A. Szwak
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Post by David A. Szwak »

The republication of false credit information is an important factor in the disposition of this case. Interpreting the FCRA in Young v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., the Fifth Circuit determined that "the republication of [false] credit information resulting in a new denial of credit constitutes a distinct harm and thus gives rise to a cause of action that is separate from that arising from the original publication." 294 F.3d 631, 636 (5th Cir.2002) (emphasis added). See also Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 861 F.2d 446, 449-50 (5th Cir.1988) (describing each issuance of a false credit report as a "discrete event" and a "distinct and separate injury"), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 (1989). Accordingly, the court must treat each publication of the false credit information furnished by MBNA as a distinct and separate injury, and Boley must establish each injury through sufficient factual allegations. For example, Boley must allege that, (1) within the FRCA limitations period, (2) a CRA republished the false credit information furnished by MBNA, and (3) that the republication resulted in a new denial of credit.

Boley v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22350752
N.D.Tex.,2003.
Sep 25, 2003
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Post Reply

Return to “Defamation: State Law”