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.
MONTANA<strong>Coverage</strong> Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:<strong>Sexual</strong> <strong>Misconduct</strong> ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsReport<strong>in</strong>g LawsOtherNot addressed <strong>in</strong> sexual misconduct sett<strong>in</strong>g.<strong>Sexual</strong> molestation of a child is necessarily an <strong>in</strong>tentional act forwhich the <strong>in</strong>tent to harm is <strong>in</strong>ferred <strong>and</strong> therefore is not covered. NewHampshire Ins. Group v. Strecker, 798 P.2d 130 (Mont. 1990); Seealso Farmers Union Mut. Ins. v. Kienenberger, 847 P.2d 1360 (Mont.1993).In an action where <strong>in</strong>sured parents sought coverage from <strong>in</strong>surer fornegligent supervision claim brought aga<strong>in</strong>st them for <strong>in</strong>juries susta<strong>in</strong>edby a woman who was raped by their 13-year-old son, the MontanaSupreme Court granted the <strong>in</strong>surer’s motion for summary judgmentf<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that the claimant’s <strong>in</strong>juries were caused by an <strong>in</strong>sured person’s<strong>in</strong>tentional act. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. v. Kienenberger, 847 P.2d1360 (Mont. 1993).A sexual misconduct exclusion precluded coverage for claims ofnegligence aga<strong>in</strong>st non-perpetrators. Employers Mut. Co. v. G.Dd/b/a Day Care Center, 894 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1990); See alsoNorthfield Ins. Co. v. Montana Inc. of Counties, 10 P.3d 813 (Mont.2000) (Involved validity of sexual misconduct exclusions, but actiondismissed for lack of justifiable controversy).The limitations period for childhood sexual abuse claims is 3 yearsafter the abuse caused the <strong>in</strong>jury, or 3 years after the claimantdiscovered or reasonably should have discovered that the <strong>in</strong>jury wascaused by the act of childhood sexual abuse. Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-216. This statute was expressly made retroactive <strong>and</strong> applicable to allcauses of action commenced on or after October 1, 1989 regardlessof when the cause of action arose. Mont. Sess. Laws § 5, Ch. 158(1989); Day v. Dayne, 929 P.2d 864 (Mont. 1996). The limitationsperiod for sexual abuse has been <strong>in</strong>terpreted to apply to negligenceclaims aga<strong>in</strong>st third parties. Werre v. David, 913 P.2d 625, 630 (Mont.1996).Mont. Code Ann. §41-3-101 et. seq.The relationship between a church <strong>and</strong> its members may give riseto a fiduciary relationship. Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Sa<strong>in</strong>ts, 852 P.2d 640 (Mont. 1993). The Montana courts haveaddressed the First Amendment <strong>in</strong> employment <strong>and</strong> defamationclaims. See Miller v. Catholic Diocese of Great Falls, 728 P.2d 794(Mont. 1986); Parker-Bigback v. St. Labre School, 7 P.3d 361, 364(Mont. 2000); Rasmussen v. Bennett, 741 P.2d 755, 759 (Mont. 1987).– 38 –