Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 –
ALASKAThe Code of Civil Procedure was amended effective June 6, 2003 toprovide that a person may bring an action at any time for the followingacts: (1) felony sexual abuse of a minor; (2) felony sexual assault;or (3) unlawful exploitation of a minor. However, actions involving(1) misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor; (2) misdemeanor sexualassault; (3) incest; or (4) felony indecent exposure must be broughtwithin 3 years. Id. at §9.10.065.Reporting LawsOtherAlaska Stat. §47.17.010 et. seq.An employer may be subject to vicarious liability for an employee’ssexual misconduct. See Doe v. Samaritan Counseling Center, 791P.2d 344 (Ak. 1990) (Mental health clinic could be held liable onrespondeat superior theory for sexual acts of employed therapistministertowards counseling patient).– 3 –
Page 1 and 2: Coverage and Liability Issues in Se
Page 3 and 4: Part I.Claim Trends and Changes in
Page 5 and 6: Part II.(2) The negligent:(a) Emplo
Page 7 and 8: Part III.courts have found that if
Page 9 and 10: STATETRIGGER/#OCCURRENCESSEXUALMISC
Page 11: ALABAMACoverage Trigger & Number of
Page 15 and 16: ARKANSASCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 17 and 18: CALIFORNIAStatute of LimitationsAct
Page 19 and 20: COLORADOReporting LawsOtherColo. Re
Page 21 and 22: CONNECTICUTOtherSexual abuse perpet
Page 23 and 24: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACoverage Trigge
Page 25 and 26: FLORIDAStatute of LimitationsFlorid
Page 27 and 28: HAWAI’ICoverage Trigger & Number
Page 29 and 30: Did you know? The John Jay College
Page 31 and 32: ILLINOISStatute of LimitationsThe l
Page 33 and 34: IOWACoverage Trigger & Number ofOcc
Page 35 and 36: KENTUCKYCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 37 and 38: LOUISIANAThe doctrine of “contra
Page 39 and 40: MARYLANDCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 41 and 42: MASSACHUSETTSStatute of Limitations
Page 43 and 44: MICHIGANReporting LawsOtherMich. Co
Page 45 and 46: MINNESOTAStatute of LimitationsThe
Page 47 and 48: MISSOURICoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 49 and 50: NEBRASKACoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 51 and 52: NEW HAMPSHIRECoverage Trigger & Num
Page 53 and 54: NEW JERSEYOtherThe New Jersey Chari
Page 55 and 56: NEW MEXICOWhere no physical injury
Page 57 and 58: NEW YORKOtherEmployer is not liable
Page 59 and 60: NORTH DAKOTACoverage Trigger & Numb
Page 61 and 62: OHIOOtherOhio courts have held that
Page 63 and 64:
OKLAHOMAReporting LawsOtherOkla. St
Page 65 and 66:
OREGONReporting LawsOtherOr. Rev. S
Page 67 and 68:
PENNSYLVANIAOtherThe Pennsylvania c
Page 69 and 70:
SOUTH CAROLINACoverage Trigger & Nu
Page 71 and 72:
TENNESSEECoverage Trigger & Number
Page 73 and 74:
TEXASStatute of LimitationsTexas ha
Page 75 and 76:
VERMONTCoverage Trigger & Number of
Page 77 and 78:
VIRGINIAOtherA charity is not liabl
Page 79 and 80:
WASHINGTONOtherAn employer is not s
Page 81 and 82:
WISCONSINCoverage Trigger & Number
Page 83 and 84:
- 73 -
show all

Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?