Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MICHIGANCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Courts have upheld exclusions for bodily injury expected and intendedby the insured where the insured was the perpetrator of sexual abuseagainst children because the intent to harm was inferred 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 theinferred-intent 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 inferredintentrule to a mentally handicapped adult who sexually molested aminor).Not addressed in sexual misconduct setting.The Michigan courts have upheld sexual misconduct exclusions. SeeAuto Club Group Ins. Co. v. Chincak, 2001 WL 732407 (Mich. App.Ct. June 8, 2001) (Sexual misconduct exclusion barred coveragefor claims arising out of the sexual abuse of neighborhood childrenby insured’s minor 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) (Sexual misconduct exclusionin a homeowner’s policy precluded coverage for claims against thechild perpetrator of sexual assault and the derivative claims againstthe perpetrator’s parents); Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeLauter,1998 WL 432482 (6th Cir. July 17, 1998) (Exclusion which precludedcoverage for “liability arising from any act or conduct of a sexual,molesting, or criminally deviant nature” barred coverage for all liabilityarising out of sexual misconduct including claims against a nonperpetrator).The limitations period for personal injury claims is 2 years from thedate of discovery for claims of assault and battery and 3 years fromthe date of discovery for all other personal injury 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 and her father’s estate for allegedchildhood sexual abuse, the Michigan Supreme Court held that neitherthe discovery rule nor the insanity disability statute extended the timeallowable for bringing suit in a repressed memory situation and thatthe question of tolling the allowable time for bringing 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 in repressed memory caseswhere the defendant has made express and unequivocal admissionsof childhood sexual contact with the plaintiff); 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 “handicap” underthe Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act or a “disability” under theAmericans with Disabilities Act).– 32 –
MICHIGANReporting LawsOtherMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §722.622 et. seq.There is no appellate precedent in Michigan which addresses theissue of respondeat superior liability in the context of a sexualmisconduct claim. Nevertheless, in Teadt v. Lutheran Church MissouriSynod, 603 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. App. Ct. 1999) the Court of Appealsacknowledged that the trial court had dismissed plaintiff’s respondeatsuperior claims against a church because the minister who wasinvolved in a sexual relationship was clearly acting outside of thescope of his employment.– 33 –
Page 1 and 2: Coverage and Liability Issues in Se
Page 3 and 4: Part I.Claim Trends and Changes in
Page 5 and 6: Part II.(2) The negligent:(a) Emplo
Page 7 and 8: Part III.courts have found that if
Page 9 and 10: STATETRIGGER/#OCCURRENCESSEXUALMISC
Page 11 and 12: ALABAMACoverage Trigger & Number of
Page 13 and 14: ALASKAThe Code of Civil Procedure w
Page 15 and 16: ARKANSASCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 17 and 18: CALIFORNIAStatute of LimitationsAct
Page 19 and 20: COLORADOReporting LawsOtherColo. Re
Page 21 and 22: CONNECTICUTOtherSexual abuse perpet
Page 23 and 24: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACoverage Trigge
Page 25 and 26: FLORIDAStatute of LimitationsFlorid
Page 27 and 28: HAWAI’ICoverage Trigger & Number
Page 29 and 30: Did you know? The John Jay College
Page 31 and 32: ILLINOISStatute of LimitationsThe l
Page 33 and 34: IOWACoverage Trigger & Number ofOcc
Page 35 and 36: KENTUCKYCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 37 and 38: LOUISIANAThe doctrine of “contra
Page 39 and 40: MARYLANDCoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 41: MASSACHUSETTSStatute of Limitations
Page 45 and 46: MINNESOTAStatute of LimitationsThe
Page 47 and 48: MISSOURICoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 49 and 50: NEBRASKACoverage Trigger & Number o
Page 51 and 52: NEW HAMPSHIRECoverage Trigger & Num
Page 53 and 54: NEW JERSEYOtherThe New Jersey Chari
Page 55 and 56: NEW MEXICOWhere no physical injury
Page 57 and 58: NEW YORKOtherEmployer is not liable
Page 59 and 60: NORTH DAKOTACoverage Trigger & Numb
Page 61 and 62: OHIOOtherOhio courts have held that
Page 63 and 64: OKLAHOMAReporting LawsOtherOkla. St
Page 65 and 66: OREGONReporting LawsOtherOr. Rev. S
Page 67 and 68: PENNSYLVANIAOtherThe Pennsylvania c
Page 69 and 70: SOUTH CAROLINACoverage Trigger & Nu
Page 71 and 72: TENNESSEECoverage Trigger & Number
Page 73 and 74: TEXASStatute of LimitationsTexas ha
Page 75 and 76: VERMONTCoverage Trigger & Number of
Page 77 and 78: VIRGINIAOtherA charity is not liabl
Page 79 and 80: WASHINGTONOtherAn employer is not s
Page 81 and 82: WISCONSINCoverage Trigger & Number
Page 83 and 84: - 73 -

Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?