Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

IDAHOCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.The Idaho courts apply the inferred intent rule in sexual misconductcases so that an intentional act exclusion precludes coverage toperpetrators. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Doe, 946 P.2d 1333(Idaho 1997); Mutual Of Enumclaw v. Wilcox, 843 P.2d 154 (Idaho1992).In case where molestation victims sued a day care center employeefor negligently failing to warn of or report her husband’s sexual abuseof children, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the employee’salleged negligence was not an occurrence, because it was thehusband’s abusive conduct that caused the injury. Mutual ofEnumclaw v. Wilcox, 843 P.2d 154 (Idaho 1992).Not addressed.An action to recover damages for personal injury must be broughtwithin 2 years. Idaho Code §5-219(4).Actions against a person who has committed sexual abuse of a childmust be brought within five years from the date that the victim reachesthe age of 18. Id. at §6-1701 and §6-1704. This statute applies tocauses of action that occurred on or after July 1, 1989. §6-1705.The Idaho courts do not toll the statute of limitations for repressedmemories. See Bonner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, 913 P.2d567 (Idaho 1996) (Two brothers allegedly sexually abused by a priestwere barred by the statute of limitations even if the full effect of theabuse was not felt until years later). The Idaho Supreme Court alsoheld that the five-year statute of limitations in §6-1704 did not applyto claims against a non-perpetrator school district which was suedpursuant to Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act. See Osbornv. Salinas, 958 P.2d 1142 (Idaho 1998).Reporting LawsIdaho Code § 16-1601 et.al.– 18 –