Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OKLAHOMACoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Courts infer intent to inflict harm when an adult perpetrator sexuallymolests a child such that coverage is precluded. Allstate Ins. Co. v.Thomas, 684 F. Supp. 1056 (W.D. Okla. 1988). See also Church Ins.Co. v. Shaw, 930 F.2d 32 (10th Cir. 1991) (Claims of negligence andbreach of fiduciary relationship against perpetrator priest were not an“occurrence” under church’s liability policy).Criminal acts exclusion applied to preclude coverage for negligenceclaims against insured church arising out of sexual abuse of minorfemales by church employee. All American Ins. Co. v. Burns, 971 F.2d438 (10th Cir. 1992); See also American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co.v. Wodarski, 68 F.3d 483 (10th Cir. 1995). No coverage for employerwhere employee sexually assaulted female tenant at apartmentcomplex because employee’s acts were attributable to the employer);Cf. Lutheran Benevolent Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Catholic Risk RetentionGroup, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1506 (N.D. Okla. 1995) (Church’s retentionof priest after learning that the priest allegedly had sexually molesteda child constituted an “occurrence” within the meaning of the church’sexcess liability insurance policy).A sexual contact exclusion barred coverage for professionalmalpractice claims arising out of sexual relationship between patientand therapist and the exclusion was found not to be against publicpolicy. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gold, 149 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir.1998). In another case a sexual misconduct exclusion barred claimsagainst insured day care center resulting from sexual molestationof children by employees of the day care center. Kansas City Fire &Marine Ins. Co. v. Happiness is a Learning Center, Inc., 968 F.2d 1224(10th Cir. 1992); Cf. Lutheran Benevolent Ins. Co. v. Nat’l CatholicRisk Retention Group, 939 F. Supp. 1506 W.D. Okla. (1995) (A “sexualmisconduct limited coverage” endorsement did not pre-empt coverageunder policy’s general liability provisions).Oklahoma has a two-year limitation period for personal injury claimsand 1 year limited period for actions based on assault or battery. Okla.Stat. tit. 12, §95 (3) and 95 (4).The limitations period for actions based on childhood sexual abuseis: (a) two years from the act alleged to have caused the injury orcondition or (b) two years from the time the victim discovered orreasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition wascaused by the act or that the act caused the injury for which the claimis brought. Id. at § 95(6). The evidence should include proof that thevictim had psychologically repressed the memory of the facts uponwhich the claim was predicated and that there was corroboratingevidence that the sexual abuse actually occurred. Any action basedon intentional conduct must be commenced within 20 years of thevictim reaching the age of 18. Id. See Weathers v. Fulgenzi, 884P.2d 538 (Okla. 1994) (Discovery rule did not apply to adult females’sexual abuse claims against therapist); Lovelace v. Keohane, 831P.2d 624 (Okla. 1992) (Discovery rule did not apply to claims arisingout of sexual relationship between adult female plaintiff suffering frommultiple personality disorder and priest).– 52 –
OKLAHOMAReporting LawsOtherOkla. Stat. tit. 10, §7101 et. seq.Any volunteer shall be immune from liability in a civil action on thebasis of any act or omission of the volunteer resulting in damageor injury if: (1) the volunteer was acting in good faith and within thescope of the volunteer’s official functions and duties for a charitableorganization…; and (2) the damage or injury was not caused bygross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct by the volunteer.Okla. Stat. tit. 76, §31(A). In any civil action against a charitableorganization or not-for-profit corporation for damages based on theconduct of a volunteer, the doctrine of respondeat superior shall applynotwithstanding the immunity granted to the volunteer. Id. at §31(B).Minister’s deviant sexual conduct with children was outside the scopeof his employment. N.H. v. Presbyterian Church, 998 P. 2d 592 (Okla.1999).– 53 –
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 and 54: NEW JERSEYOtherThe New Jersey Chari
Page 55 and 56: NEW MEXICOWhere no physical injury
Page 57 and 58: NEW YORKOtherEmployer is not liable
Page 59 and 60: NORTH DAKOTACoverage Trigger & Numb
Page 61: OHIOOtherOhio courts have held that
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?