Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

VERMONTCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Courts have upheld exclusions for bodily injury expected andintended by the insured in situations involving the sexual abuse ofminors because the intent to harm was inferred by the conduct. SeeNationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LaJoie, 661 A.2d 85 (Vt. 1995); Seealso T.B.H. v. Meyer, 716 A.2d 31 (Vt. 1998). However, intent toharm will not necessarily be inferred where the perpetrator is a minor.Northern Security Ins. Co. v. Perron, 777 A.2d 151 (Vt. 2001).An intentional acts exclusion does not bar claims of negligentsupervision against the perpetrator’s employer. Northern Security Ins.Co. v. Perron, 777 A.2d 151 (Vt. 2001).Not addressed.The statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three years fromthe date of discovery. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §512.There is a special statute of limitations for actions based on childhoodsexual abuse which provides a limitations period of six years from theact alleged to have caused the injury or six years from the date theperson abused discovered that the injury or condition was caused bythe act. Id. at §522. The discovery rule for childhood sexual abuseclaims is not subject to a reasonableness requirement. Barquin v.Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, 839 F. Supp. 275 (D.Vt. 1993).Reporting LawsOtherVt. Stat. Ann.tit. 33, §4911 et. seq.A Vermont Federal Court acknowledged that inquiry by a court or juryinto the policies and practices of a religious organization in supervisingand hiring clergy may foster excessive entanglement with religion,but if there was knowledge of perverted sexual proclivities, then theinstitution might well be held accountable. See Barquin v. RomanCatholic Diocese of Burlington, 839 F. Supp. 275 (D. Vt. 1993).– 65 –