Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Not addressed in sexual misconduct settingNot addressed in sexual misconduct settingIn a declaratory judgment lawsuit arising out of a counselor’s sexualcontact with a mentally ill patient, the Court of Appeals referenced, butdid not address on appeal, the trial court’s finding that a “sexual actionexclusion” did not bar coverage where allegations of unauthorized tripsto restaurants and bars were not necessarily sexual in connotationand purpose and did not bar coverage for claim for negligent hiringand supervision. Potomac Residence Club, et al. v. Western WorldIns. Co., 711 A.2d 1228 (D.C. 1998), rehearing en banc granted percuriam, 711 A.2d 1250 (D.C. 1998) (settled before decision).The limitations period is one year for actions for assault and batteryand three years for actions for which a limitation is not otherwisespecifically prescribed. D.C. Code Ann. §12-301(4) and (8) 1999.The District of Columbia courts have applied the “discovery rule” tocases involving sexual abuse of a minor. See Farris v. Compton,652 A.2d 49 (D.C.1994) (Discovery rule extended limitations periodto claims by sisters that they repressed memory of abuse by theirbrother); Cf. Cevenini v. Archbishop of Washington, 707 A.2d 768(D.C. 1998) (Actions against a priest and the archdiocese were timebarredbecause the claimants had notice of the abuse within threeyears of when they turned 18 and because the archdiocese’s failure todisclose information when it transferred the priest to other parishes didnot constitute fraudulent concealment).Reporting LawsOtherD.C. Code Ann. §4-1301.01 et. seq.Where a woman was raped by an employee of a foreign government,the court held that respondeat superior liability did not applybecause sexual assault could never fall within the scope of office oremployment or further an employer’s business, even if the assault wascommitted while the employee was “on duty.” Guzel v. State of Kuwait,818 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. 1993); See also Boykin v. District of Columbia,484 A.2d 560 (D.C. 1984) (Sexual assault on school child by a Districtemployee was outside the scope of employment); Sebastian v. Districtof Columbia, 636 A.2d 958 (D.C. 1994) (Ambulance attendant’s sexualmolestation of passenger was outside the scope of employment).– 13 –