Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

CALIFORNIAStatute of LimitationsActions for personal injuries must be brought within one year. Cal. Civ.Proc. Code §340(3).The California Code was amended in 1998 to provide differentlimitations periods for actions brought against perpetrators asopposed to third parties. Claims against perpetrators were requiredto be brought within the later of: (1) eight years of age of majority;or, (2) three years from discovery that psychological injury or illnessoccurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.1(a). Claims against non-perpetratorswere required to be brought before the claimant’s 26th birthday. Id.at § 340.1(b). See Debbie Reynolds Professional Rehearsal Studiosv. Johnson, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 (Cal. App. Ct. 1994) (Extendedlimitations period does not apply to third parties); Cf. David T. v. Doe 2,No. E025022 (Cal. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Division 2, April 11, 2000) (courtreached contrary result to Debbie Reynolds decision).The California Code was amended again in 2002. Theseamendments extended the limitations period for claims against nonperpetratorswho knew or had reason to know of unlawful sexualconduct by an employee and others and failed to take steps to avoidacts of further unlawful conduct by that person to eight years aftermajority or three years after discovery that injuries were caused by theabuse. Id. at §340(a) and (b). These amendments also provided thatclaims which could now be brought against non-perpetrators, but wereotherwise barred as of January 1, 2003, were revived if commencedwithin one year of January 1, 2003. Id. at §340(c).The California courts have addressed the application of the repressedmemory rule. See Lent v. Doe, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389 (Cal. Ct. App.1995) (Failure to connect abuse to injuries was reasonable given thetrauma caused by the abuse); Tietge v. Western Province, 64 Cal.Rptr. 2d 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).Reporting LawsOtherCal. Penal Code §11164 et seq.The California courts have generally not allowed vicarious liability.John R. v. Oakland Unified Minor School District, 256 Cal. Rptr. 766(Cal. 1989) (School District not vicariously liable for molestation ofstudent by math teacher); Jeffrey v. Central Baptist Church, 243Cal. Rptr. 128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988); Rita Milla v. Roman CatholicArchbishop of Los Angeles, 232 Cal. Rptr. 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)(Priests’ sexual contact with 16-year-old was not an act performedincident their priestly duties.) However, a trial court recently refusedto summarily dismiss claims alleging vicarious liability in sexual abusecases finding that the issue of whether the perpetrator’s abuse waswithin the scope of employment is a question of fact to be determinedon summary judgment or trial based on the facts of the individual case.The Clergy Cases III, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No.4359 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty. Sept. 24, 2004).– 7 –