Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MICHIGAN<strong>Coverage</strong> Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:<strong>Sexual</strong> <strong>Misconduct</strong> ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed <strong>in</strong> sexual misconduct sett<strong>in</strong>g.Courts have upheld exclusions for bodily <strong>in</strong>jury expected <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tendedby the <strong>in</strong>sured where the <strong>in</strong>sured was the perpetrator of sexual abuseaga<strong>in</strong>st children because the <strong>in</strong>tent to harm was <strong>in</strong>ferred by theconduct. See Fire Ins. Exch. v. Diehl, 545 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 1995);Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Gardipey, 434 N.W.2d 220 (Mich. App. Ct.1988). However, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to extend the<strong>in</strong>ferred-<strong>in</strong>tent rule to cases where the perpetrator is a child. SeeFire Ins. Exch. v. Diehl, 545 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 1995); Cf. Weekley v.Jameson, 561 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. App. Ct. 1997) (Applied the <strong>in</strong>ferred<strong>in</strong>tentrule to a mentally h<strong>and</strong>icapped adult who sexually molested am<strong>in</strong>or).Not addressed <strong>in</strong> sexual misconduct sett<strong>in</strong>g.The Michigan courts have upheld sexual misconduct exclusions. SeeAuto Club Group Ins. Co. v. Ch<strong>in</strong>cak, 2001 WL 732407 (Mich. App.Ct. June 8, 2001) (<strong>Sexual</strong> misconduct exclusion barred coveragefor claims aris<strong>in</strong>g out of the sexual abuse of neighborhood childrenby <strong>in</strong>sured’s m<strong>in</strong>or child); Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bidle, 1997 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 7043 (S.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. App.LEXIS 13630 (6th Cir. Jun. 23, 1998) (<strong>Sexual</strong> misconduct exclusion<strong>in</strong> a homeowner’s policy precluded coverage for claims aga<strong>in</strong>st thechild perpetrator of sexual assault <strong>and</strong> the derivative claims aga<strong>in</strong>stthe perpetrator’s parents); Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeLauter,1998 WL 432482 (6th Cir. July 17, 1998) (Exclusion which precludedcoverage for “liability aris<strong>in</strong>g from any act or conduct of a sexual,molest<strong>in</strong>g, or crim<strong>in</strong>ally deviant nature” barred coverage for all liabilityaris<strong>in</strong>g out of sexual misconduct <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g claims aga<strong>in</strong>st a nonperpetrator).The limitations period for personal <strong>in</strong>jury claims is 2 years from thedate of discovery for claims of assault <strong>and</strong> battery <strong>and</strong> 3 years fromthe date of discovery for all other personal <strong>in</strong>jury claims. Mich. Comp.Laws § 600.5805.In Lemmerman v. Fealk, 534 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. 1995), where a 54-year-old woman sued her aunt <strong>and</strong> her father’s estate for allegedchildhood sexual abuse, the Michigan Supreme Court held that neitherthe discovery rule nor the <strong>in</strong>sanity disability statute extended the timeallowable for br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g suit <strong>in</strong> a repressed memory situation <strong>and</strong> thatthe question of toll<strong>in</strong>g the allowable time for br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g claims allegedlydue to repressed memory should be addressed by the legislature.See also Delmeyer v. Archdiocese of Detroit, 593 N.W.2d 560 (Mich.App. Ct. 1999) (Noted Lemmerman did not address whether thestatute of limitations should be tolled <strong>in</strong> repressed memory caseswhere the defendant has made express <strong>and</strong> unequivocal admissionsof childhood sexual contact with the pla<strong>in</strong>tiff); See also Doe v.Archdiocese of Detroit, 692 N.W. 2d 398 (Mich. App. Ct. 2004) (Foundclaimant failed to state a fraudulent concealment that avoids thestatutes of limitation); Guerra v. Garratt, 564 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. App.Ct. 1997) (Repressed memory did not constitute a “h<strong>and</strong>icap” underthe Michigan H<strong>and</strong>icappers’ Civil Rights Act or a “disability” under theAmericans with Disabilities Act).– 32 –