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.
MISSISSIPPI<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.An <strong>in</strong>tentional acts exclusion precluded coverage where an employer<strong>and</strong> its CEO were sued for sexual harassment. American StatesIns. Co. v. Natchez Steam Laundry <strong>and</strong> Simmons, 131 F.3d 551 (5thCir. 1998); See also American Guarantee <strong>and</strong> <strong>Liability</strong> Ins. Co. v.The 1906 Co., 129 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 1997) (Injuries stemm<strong>in</strong>g fromsurreptitious videotap<strong>in</strong>g of models <strong>in</strong> dress<strong>in</strong>g room were <strong>in</strong>tended<strong>and</strong> expected from st<strong>and</strong>po<strong>in</strong>t of photographer).Where claims aga<strong>in</strong>st employer for negligent hir<strong>in</strong>g, tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>entrustment are related to <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terdependent on <strong>in</strong>tentionalmisconduct of an employee, then there is no coverage. See AmericanGuarantee <strong>and</strong> <strong>Liability</strong> Ins. Co. v. The 1906 Company, 129 F.3d 802(5th Cir. 1997).The Mississippi courts have applied sexual molestation exclusions toclaims aga<strong>in</strong>st perpetrators <strong>and</strong> other potentially liable parties. SeeL<strong>in</strong>coln County School District v. Doe, 749 So.2d 943 (Miss. 1999);Titan Indemnity Co. v. Williams, 743 So.2d 1020 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)(Hold<strong>in</strong>g professional services exclusion precluded coverage for claimaga<strong>in</strong>st teachers for failure to provide proper supervision); Am. Nat’lGen. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 203 F. Supp. 2d 674 (S.D. Miss. 2001);Foreman v. Cont<strong>in</strong>ental Casualty Co., 770 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1985).Actions for assault <strong>and</strong> battery shall be commenced with<strong>in</strong> oneyear after the cause of action accrued. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35.Actions for which no other period of limitations is prescribed shall becommenced with<strong>in</strong> three years after the cause of action accrued. Id.at §15-1-49. In actions for which no other limitations is prescribed that<strong>in</strong>volve latent <strong>in</strong>jury or disease, the cause of action does not accrueuntil the claimant has discovered, or by reasonable diligence shouldhave discovered, the <strong>in</strong>jury. Id.Report<strong>in</strong>g LawsOtherMiss. Code Ann. §43-21-353 et seq.The Mississippi courts have refused to subject employers to vicariousliability. See L.T. v. City of Jackson, 145 F. Supp. 2d 750 (S.D. Miss.2000); Tichenore v. Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of NewOrleans, 32 F. 3d 953 (5th Cir. 1994) (Held that molestation wasoutside the scope of a priest’s duties <strong>and</strong> that the archdiocese didnot ratify the molestations by allow<strong>in</strong>g the priest to have contactwith young males); Saulsberry v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 673 F. Supp.811 (N.D. Miss. 1987) (Employer not subject to vicarious liability foremployee’s sexual harassment of co-employee).In a case by a parishioner aga<strong>in</strong>st a church for alleged tap<strong>in</strong>g ofconversation between the parishioner <strong>and</strong> her husb<strong>and</strong>, the courtfound that the claims for negligent misrepresentation, negligent<strong>in</strong>fliction of emotional distress, clergy malpractice <strong>and</strong> negligentsupervision <strong>and</strong> retention were barred by the First Amendment.Mabus v. St. James Episcopal Church, 884 So.2d 747 (Miss. 2004);See also Mallette v. Church of God International, 789 So.2d 120 (Miss.Ct. App. 2001) (Held First Amendment bars certa<strong>in</strong> negligence claimsaga<strong>in</strong>st religious <strong>in</strong>stitutions.)– 36 –