Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

GEORGIACoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Courts recognize an inferred intent to harm when adults sexuallyassault children. Roe v. State Farm Ins. & Cas. Co., 376 S.E.2d 876(Ga. 1989); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jarvis, 393 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App.1990); Harden v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 605 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. Ct. App.2004).Where an insurance policy excluded coverage for bodily injury“expected or intended . . . [or] which is the result of willful andmalicious acts of an insured,” there was no coverage for negligenceclaims against insured arising out of alleged sexual abuse of insured’shusband and co-insured under policy because negligence claim wasthe “result of” husband’s willful acts. Harden v. State Farm Fire & Cas.Co., 605 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).It is not contrary to public policy for insurers to limit coverage of theirinsured’s sexual misconduct. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Smith, 462S.E.2d 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).There is a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions. Ga.Code. Ann.§9-3-33. Civil actions for recovery of damages sufferedas a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced within fiveyears of the date the claimant attains the age of majority. Id. at §9-3-33.1.Causes of action arising out of sexual contact accrue at the time of theacts, regardless of the fact that the claimant may not have recognizedor discovered the full impact of the harm until later. Hickey v. Askren,403 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991); M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools,172 F.3d 797 (11th Cir. 1999).The Georgia legislature determined that the discovery rule does notapply to claims governed by §9-3-33.1.Reporting LawsOtherGa. Code. Ann. §19-7-5 et. seq.In Georgia, charitable institutions are not liable for the negligence oftheir officers and employees unless they fail to exercise ordinary carein the selection or retention of such officers and employees. Ga. CodeAnn. §51-1-20; See also Harrell v. Louis Smith Memorial Hosp., 397S.E.2d 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990); Y.M.C.A. v. Bailey, 130 S.E.2d 242(Ga. Ct. App. 1963).– 16 –