Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

MONTANACoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsReporting LawsOtherNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Sexual molestation of a child is necessarily an intentional act forwhich the intent to harm is inferred and 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 insured parents sought coverage from insurer fornegligent supervision claim brought against them for injuries sustainedby a woman who was raped by their 13-year-old son, the MontanaSupreme Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgmentfinding that the claimant’s injuries were caused by an insured person’sintentional act. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. v. Kienenberger, 847 P.2d1360 (Mont. 1993).A sexual misconduct exclusion precluded coverage for claims ofnegligence against 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 injury, or 3 years after the claimantdiscovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury wascaused by the act of childhood sexual abuse. Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-216. This statute was expressly made retroactive and 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 interpreted to apply to negligenceclaims against 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 and its members may give riseto a fiduciary relationship. Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints, 852 P.2d 640 (Mont. 1993). The Montana courts haveaddressed the First Amendment in employment and 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 –