Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NEW MEXICOCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsIn a case involving the archdiocese’s alleged negligent retention andsupervision of priests who sexually molested minors, court foundcoverage must be calculated on a per-priest, per-year basis despitenumber of persons harmed by a particular priest in any one year.Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe v. CentennialIns. Co., NO.SF.-93-1519 (c) (N.Mex. Dist. Ct. March 15, 1995). Inanother case involving minors sexually abused from 1968 to 1970who did not realize the nature of their resulting injuries until 1992, thecourt held that the insurers on risk when the abuse took place andwhen claimants became aware of their injuries had a duty to defend.Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 857 F. Supp.822 (D. N.M. 1994), amended in part, clarified in part, 866 F. Supp.1560 (N.M. 1994).An intentional acts exclusion precludes coverage for an insured’sintentional acts of sexual abuse based on the inferred intent doctrine.See Sena v. Travelers Ins. Co., 801 F. Supp. 471 (D. N.M. 1992); NewMexico Physicians Mut. Liab. Co. v. LaMure, et al., 860 P.2d 734 (N.M.1993) (Criminal acts exclusion barred coverage under professionalliability policy for doctor’s sexual abuse of patient).An exclusion for intentional acts of “the insured” would not barcoverage for alleged negligence of a non-perpetrator connected withthe abuse, but an exclusion for intentional acts of “an insured” wouldbar coverage for a non-perpetrator’s negligence because the bar isfor claims against any insured arising out of underlying sexual abuse.Sena v. Travelers Ins. Co., 801 F. Supp. 471 (D. N.M. 1992).The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that a sexual misconductexclusion bars coverage for all claims arising from alleged sexualmisconduct; however, the insurer has a duty to defend all claimsuntil it can establish that all claims fall within the sexual misconductexclusion. Lopez v. New Mexico Pub. Sch. Ins. Auth., 870 P.2d 745(N.M. 1994).Actions for injuries to the person must be brought within three years.N.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-8.An action based on childhood sexual abuse may be filed the laterof: (1) the victim’s 24th birthday; or (2) three years from when thevictim knew or had reason to know of the abuse and that the abusecaused injury to the victim, as established by competent medical orpsychological testimony. Id at §37-1-30. In a case based on §37-1-8 and not the childhood sexual abuse statute, the court held thatthe discovery rule did not toll the limitations period beyond the dateclaimant first became aware of significant injuries from minor sexualabuse, such as acquisition of venereal disease and an unwantedpregnancy. Martinez-Sandoval v. Kirsch, et al., 884 P.2d 507 (N.M.Ct. App. 1994).– 44 –
NEW MEXICOWhere no physical injury would have led a minor sexual abuse victimto discover the psychological injury caused by the abuse, it was ajury question whether the claimant knew or should have known of thecausal connection between the abuse and injury to determine whenthe limitations period began to run under § 37-1-30. Kevin J. v. Sager,999 P.2d 1026 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999).Reporting LawsOtherN.M. Stat. Ann. §32A-4-1 et seq.The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that there was no agencyrelationship between an out-of-state diocese and its former priest and,therefore, that diocese had no duty to warn a parishioner who wasabused by the priest while he was employed in another, state. Tescerov. Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, 48 P.3d 50 (N.M. 2002).– 45 –
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 and 42: MASSACHUSETTSStatute of Limitations
Page 43 and 44: MICHIGANReporting LawsOtherMich. Co
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: NEW JERSEYOtherThe New Jersey Chari
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 -
show all

Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?