Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

OHIOCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Courts have upheld exclusions for expected and intended bodily injurywhere the insured was the perpetrator because the intent to harmwas inferred by the conduct. See Gearing v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 665N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 1996); Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 665 N.E.2d1121 (Ohio 1996), holding modified by Doe v. Shaffer, 738 N.E. 2d1243 (Ohio 2000).A court must look to the intentions or expectations of the negligentthird party and not the intentions or expectations of the perpetratorof the sexual misconduct in determining whether an intentional actsexclusion applies. See Doe v. Shaffer, 738 N.E.2d 1243 (Ohio 2000);United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2002 WL 31716117 (Ohio App. Dec. 4,2002).Sexual misconduct exclusion precluded coverage for claims againsta sexual offender and for claims against a non-perpetrator for failureto ensure that the sexual misconduct would not be committed. SeePrudential Prop. & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Emmert, 1996 WL 362064(Ohio. Ct. App. June 27, 1996).The limitations period for personal injury claims is two years after thecause of action arose. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.10. The limitationsperiod for assault and battery claims is one year after the cause ofaction accrues. Id. at §2305.111. The limitations period for derivativeclaims, such as claims by parents of the abused minor for loss ofconsortium and treatment expenses, is four years after the cause ofaction accrues. Id. at §2305.09(D).The discovery rule may toll the limitations period where a claimantclaims repressed memories of the abuse. See Ault v. Jasko, 637N.E.2d 870 (Ohio 1994) (Found one-year limitations period beganto run when the claimant knows, or by the exercise of reasonablediligence should have known, that she had been injured by thedefendant’s conduct); See also Doe v. First United Methodist Church,629 N.E. 2d 402 (Ohio 1994). However, in the absence of repressedmemories, the discovery rule does not apply. Doe v. CatholicDiocese of Cleveland, 813 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio App. 2004); Cramerv. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 814 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio App. 2004). Thediscovery rule does not toll the limitations period for parents’ claimsrelated to the sexual abuse of their minor children. Loudin v. Mills,2000 WL 569569 (Ohio App. May 12, 2000).Evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressionare insufficient to establish that the victim of sexual abuse was of“unsound mind” so as to toll the limitations period for legal disabilities.Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland, 710 N.E.2d 330 (Ohio App. 1998);See also Casey v. Casey, 673 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio App. 1996) (Evidenceof alcoholism and drug abuse, without more, is insufficient to establish“unsound mind”).Reporting LawsOhio Rev. Code Ann. §2151.031 et seq.– 50 –