cies ▁come ▁to ▁the ▁attention ▁of ▁the ▁potential ▁pla int iff , ▁rather ▁than ▁the ▁date ▁on ▁which ▁the ▁credit ▁reporting ▁ag ency ▁made ▁the ▁in ac cur ate ▁dis closure . ▁Andrew s ▁re lied ▁on ▁legisl ative ▁history ▁pointing ▁to ▁Congress ’ ▁consideration ▁of ▁alternative ▁language ▁in ▁making ▁her ▁argument . ▁The ▁Court ▁rejected ▁Andrew s ’ ▁reli ance ▁on ▁legisl ative ▁history ▁not ing ▁that ▁TR W ▁was ▁able ▁to ▁present ▁information ▁to ▁the ▁contrary . ▁▁▁ ▁The ▁Court ▁also ▁rejected ▁Andrew s ’ ▁argument ▁that ▁li ability ▁did ▁not ▁arise ▁until ▁actual ▁dam ages ▁material ized . ▁Ref using ▁to ▁address ▁the ▁issue ▁because ▁it ▁was ▁not ▁raised ▁earlier , ▁the ▁Court ▁doubt ed ▁that ▁the ▁argument ▁would ▁have ▁a ided ▁Andrew s ▁because ▁Andrew s ’ ▁alleg ed ▁dam ages ▁began ▁to ▁material ize ▁when ▁the ▁in ac cur ate ▁dis clos ures ▁were ▁made , ▁causing ▁the ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations ▁to ▁to ll ▁at ▁the ▁same ▁time ▁as ▁under ▁the ▁stat ut ory ▁language ▁in ▁question . ▁▁ ▁By ▁revers ing ▁the ▁N inth ▁Circ uit ’ s ▁decision , ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁bar red ▁Andrew s ’ ▁claims ▁based ▁upon ▁the ▁two ▁earliest ▁dis clos ures . ▁The ▁case ▁was ▁rem and ed ▁for ▁further ▁proceed ings ▁consistent ▁with ▁the ▁opinion , ▁pres umably ▁allowing ▁Andrew s ▁to ▁go ▁forward ▁with ▁the ▁other ▁claims . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁List ▁of ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁cases , ▁volume ▁ 5 3 4 ▁List ▁of ▁United ▁States