Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

ILLINOISStatute of LimitationsThe limitations period for personal injury claims is two years from thedate of discovery. 735 Ill. Comp. Stats. 5/13-202.The limitations period for actions based on childhood sexual abuse isten years from the age of majority or removal of legal disability or fiveyears from the date the person abused discovers or through the useof reasonable diligence should discover that the act of abuse occurredand that the injury was caused by it. Id. at 5/13-202.2(b). Thelimitations period does not run when the person abused is subject tothreats, intimidation, manipulation or fraud perpetrated by the abuseror person acting in the interest of the abuser. Id. §113-202.2(d).The discovery rule may serve to toll the limitations period where aclaimant claims repressed memories of the abuse. See Clay v. Kuhl,696 N.E.2d 1245 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998); M.E.H. v. L.H., 669 N.E.2d1228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996); D.P. v. M.J.O., 640 N.E.2d 1323 (Ill. App. Ct.1994).The discovery rule applies to suits against perpetrators and to nonperpetratorswho had a duty to protect the child victim. Hobert v.Covenant Children’s Home, 723 N.E.2d 384 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). Thelimitations period begins to run when the claimant is aware that injurieswere sustained and that they were wrongfully caused. See Parks v.Knownacki, 737 N.E.2d 287 (Ill.2000).A statute of repose was in effect from January 1, 1991 to 1994 thatprecluded litigants over age 30 from commencing an action basedon childhood sexual abuse. 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2(b). Although thestatute was repealed, it created a vested right for defendants suchthat anyone who attained age 30 prior to 1994 is barred from bringinga claim. See M.E.H. v. L.H., 669 N.E.2d 1228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996);Benton v. Vonnahmen, 679 N.E.2d 1270 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).Reporting LawsOther325 Ill. Comp. Stats. §§ 511 et. seq.The Illinois courts have held that an employee’s sexual assault upona third party is outside the scope of the employment. See Amato v.Greenquist, 679 N.E.2d 446 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); Deloney v. Board ofEducation of Thornton, 666 N.E.2d 792 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996); Randi F. v.High Ridge YMCA, 524 N.E.2d 966 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988); Webb v. JewelCompanies, Inc., 485 N.E.2d 409 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985).The Illinois courts have declined to entertain cases involving theinterpretation of religious doctrine. See Baumgartner v. The FirstChurch of Christ, 490 N.E.2d 1319 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986). Claims againstclergy for breach of fiduciary duty are not actionable under Illinois law.Amato v. Greenquist, 679 N.E.2d 446 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). However,a negligence action against a church for failure to protect plaintiffsfrom sexual misconduct by its clergy would not require the court toadjudicate or interpret religious policies, practices, doctrines or tenets,so such an action is not barred by a church’s right to freely exercise itsreligion. Bivin v. Wright, 656 N.E.2d 1121 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).– 21 –