Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

WISCONSINCoverage Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:Sexual Misconduct ExclusionsStatute of LimitationsNot addressed in sexual misconduct setting.Sexual assaults upon a minor are so certain to result in injury thatintent to injure is inferred as a matter of law. Guerin v. School Dist. ofMenomonee Falls, 585 N.W.2d 826 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).Where a grandfather allegedly engaged in sexually explicit conductwith his four grandchildren, an intentional acts exclusion precludedhomeowner’s insurance coverage for negligence claims againstperpetrator’s spouse. Jessica M.F. v. Liberty Mut. Fire. Ins. Co., 561N.W.2d 787 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).Sexual molestation exclusion precluded coverage for bodily andpsychological injuries caused by the molestation. Tara N. v. EconomyFire & Cas. Ins. Co., 540 N.W.2d 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995); see alsoTaryn E.F. v. Joshua M.C., 505 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. Ct. App.1993), IPCILtd. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 758 F. Supp. 478 (E.D. Wis. 1991).The limitations period for personal injury claims is three years fromthe date of discovery. Wis. Stat. §893.54. The limitations period forassault, battery or other intentional tort is two years from the date ofdiscovery. Id. at. §893.57.Wisconsin has a limitations period for sexual assault of a child. Wis.Stat, S893.587. Actions filed before Septemper 1, 2001 had to bebrought two years after discovery of injury and cause. Actions filedafter September 1, 2001, but barred by May 1, 2004, had to be broughtfive years after discovery of injury and cause. Actions not otherwisebarred as of May 1, 2004, must be brought before a claimant reaches35 years of age.The Wisconsin courts that addressed application of the discovery ruleto actions commenced prior to the revised statute of limitations foundthat the discovery rule did not to apply to claims of negligent retentionand supervision. Schauer v. Diocese of Green Bay, 687 N.W.2d 766(Wis. App. 2004); See also Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee,2004 WL 1698063 (Wis. App. Jully 30, 2004); Doe v. Archdioceseof Milwaukee, 565 N.W.2d 94 (Wis. 1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese ofMilwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1995).Reporting LawsOtherWis. Stat. §48-981 et. seq.Drug abuse counselor’s sexual relationship with a patient did notsubject the clinic to vicarious liability as the counselor’s actions felloutside the scope of his employment. Block v. Gomez, 549 N.W.2d783 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).The First Amendment barred a negligent supervision claim againsta religious organization for a priest’s sexual activity since such adetermination would require interpretation of church canons andinternal church policies and practices. Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese ofMilwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1995); See also L.L.N. v. Clauder,563 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. 1997).– 71 –