Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

TEXASStatute of LimitationsTexas has a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims. Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.§ 16.003.Texas enacted a five-year limitations period in June 1995 that appliesif injury arises as a result of sexual assault or aggravated sexualassault as defined in the Texas Penal Code. Id. at § 16.0045.In a case decided prior to the enactment of § 16.0045, the courtrejected a claimant’s repressed memory argument to toll the limitationperiod for an abuse claim because the abuse was not objectivelyverifiable. S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996); See also John DoeXV v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5178(Tex. App. July 31, 2001) (Claims of unsound mind and fraudulentconcealment did not toll statute of limitations); L.C. v. A.D., 971S.W.2d 512 (Tex. App. 1997) (Claimant who claimed her father abusedher earlier and who had been informed by therapists of the likelihoodof incest in her past had sufficient information to discover the cause ofaction); Sanchez v. Archdiocese of San Antonio, 873 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.App. 1994) (Rejected repressed memory argument where claimantwas aware she had been injured).Reporting LawsTex. Fam. Code Ann §261.001 et seq.Other There is a limit of liability of $500,000 each person and $1,000,000each occurrence for civil actions brought against charitableorganizations and their employees for damages based on an act oromission in the course and scope of employment. Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code Ann. § 84.005 et seq. These limits do not apply to an actor omission that is intentional, willful, wantonly negligent or done withconscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.Id at § 84.007.An employer may be liable for an intentional tort of its employeeunder the doctrine of respondeat superior if the employee’s conductwas within the scope of his employment. See Sanders v. Casa ViewBaptist Church, 134 F. 3d 331 (5th Cir. 1998) (Church not liable underrespondeat superior theory for minister’s sexual contact with marriedwomen because he did not have actual or apparent authority toengage in marital counseling).Where the parents of a minor female alleged a church, whileattempting to exorcize demons from their daughter, conducted ritualsthat left her bruised, scratched and terrified, the court issued a writ toprevent discovery finding the claims would require an impermissibleevaluation of religious beliefs. In re Pleasant Glade Assembly of God,991 S.W. 2d 85 (Tex. App. 1999); See also Tilton v. Moye, 869 S.W.2d955 (Tex. 1994).– 63 –