Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

ALASKACoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Not addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Alaska courts apply the inferred intent rule in molestation cases sothat intentional act exclusions preclude coverage for perpetrators ofsexual misconduct. See Kim and T.O. v. National Indemnity Co. 6 P.3d264 (Alaska. 2000), overruled on other grounds, Shaw v. State FarmMut. Auto Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 588 (Alaska. 2001); Allstate v. Roefls, 698F. Supp. 815 (D. Alaska 1987); Cf. National Chiropractic Mutual Ins.Co. v. Doe, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Alaska 1998) (Coverage foundwhere insured chiropractor performed allegedly unwanted breastexam because his actions could have been negligent and not forgratification).The inferred intent rule was codified by the Alaska legislature forvictims of sexual abuse under the age of 16. Alaska Stat. §09.55.650.According to the statute, if the perpetrator is found to have committedmore than one act of sexual abuse against the victim, the victim is notrequired to prove which specific act caused the injury.Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsCourt found no coverage for claims against sexual misconductperpetrator and negligence claims against perpetrator’s parentswhere intentional act exclusion negated coverage for bodily injuryintentionally caused by “an insured person.” Allstate v. Roelfs, 698F. Supp. 815 (D. Alaska 1987). However, when the policy languagecontains no such limitation, the Alaska courts have held that intentionalacts exclusions would not preclude coverage for claims of negligenceagainst potentially liable third parties. See C.P. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,996 P.2d 1216 (Alaska. 2000) (Found coverage for negligence claimsagainst parents of a perpetrator); St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.,v. F.H., 55 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1995), aff’d other grounds, 117 F.3d435 (9th Cir. 1997) (Public policy does not prohibit employers fromobtaining insurance to indemnify them from liability arising from thesexual misconduct of their employees).A sexual misconduct exclusion was found to preclude coverage forabuse claims against the insured. Kim and T.O. v. National IndemnityCo. 6 P.3d 264 (Alaska. 2000), overruled on other grounds, Shaw v.State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 588 (Alaska. 2001).A person may not bring an action for assault, battery, or any injuryto the person unless it is commenced within two years. AlaskaStat.§9.10.070.Alaska law provides that an action based on childhood sexual abusemay be brought within three years after the claimant reaches theage of majority or within three years after the claimant discovered, orthrough the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, thatthe act caused the injury or condition. Id. §9.10.140(c).– 2 –