NY Archdiocese Sues Insurers After Coverage Denied for Child Sex Abuse Claims
The suit serves as a proactive move by the archdiocese, which is seeking a declaration by the court that the insurance companies must provide coverage for, and defend the church against, those claims.
July 01, 2019 at 01:46 PM
6 minute read
The Archdiocese of New York has filed a lawsuit against its various insurers over the years after one company said it's not planning to cover claims brought through a new law enacted this year that will open a window for older victims of child sex abuse to file civil litigation in New York.
The suit serves as a proactive move by the archdiocese, which is seeking a declaration by the court that the insurance companies must provide coverage for, and defend the church against, those claims.
It's the exact outcome church officials had feared early on in discussions over the Child Victims Act, a bill passed in New York this year that extended the statute of limitations for cases of child sex abuse and created a temporary window for victims of any age to bring civil litigation. That window, which runs for a year, opens in August.
The Catholic Church eventually came around to support the final version of the legislation, which was approved by lawmakers in January and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
But the litigation brought by the archdiocese last week affects more than just members of the clergy, the suit claimed. Other institutions, like schools or hospitals, could also find themselves in a situation later this year where an insurer rejects coverage for claims of child sex abuse.
Attorneys from Blank Rome in Manhattan are representing the archdiocese in the lawsuit, which was brought against nearly three dozen companies in Manhattan Supreme Court last week.
It was prompted by a decision in May from Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, or INA, and its parent company Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. They had written in a letter to the archdiocese that they didn't plan to defend the church against a lawsuit brought by a child sex abuse victim in April and wouldn't provide coverage for the claims he'd alleged.
That lawsuit was brought against the archdiocese by John Michael Norman, who alleged that two members of the clergy sexually abused him from 1972 to 1974. He brought claims of negligence against the archdiocese in the suit, claiming the church “knew and/or reasonably should have known” about the abuse.
During that time, according to the suit, the archdiocese was insured by INA. The insurance policy purchased at the time stated that INA has the duty to defend the church “even if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false, or fraudulent,” the complaint said.
The archdiocese provided notice to INA of the lawsuit in April, but was denied coverage about two weeks later.
Chubb had written, on behalf of INA, that they weren't obligated to provide coverage or defend against the lawsuit based on the nature of Norman's claims. The denial letter said Norman “alleges to have sustained injury that was expected and/or intended from the standpoint of the archdiocese. These allegations do not give rise to an 'occurrence' under the INA policies.”
The archdiocese claimed in the complaint filed last week that Chubb and INA misinterpreted Norman's lawsuit. They argued that Norman didn't allege the archdiocese expected or intended on him being sexually abused. His suit was worded differently, the church said.
“Instead, the Norman suit makes alternative allegations that the archdiocese knew or should have known of the improper conduct of Father Fernando and Monsignor Brennan,” the complaint said. “The Norman suit thus seeks to hold the archdiocese liable even though the archdiocese may not have expected or intended, or even had notice or knowledge of the alleged abuse.”
The church also argued that the insurance companies ignored that Norman's suit doesn't identify who might have known about the alleged abuse and what information was available to the archdiocese at the time.
“To the extent that the Norman suit alleges that the archdiocese had knowledge of the alleged abuse, the Norman suit fails even to allege that the archdiocese actually knew or received notice of Father Fernando's or Monsignor Brennan's pedophilic propensities prior to the alleged abuse, thus leaving open the possibility that the archdiocese neither expected nor intended the abuse, if at all, until some point after it started,” the lawsuit said.
Norman's suit hasn't yet been filed, but it's set to become active when the one-year window opens in August. The Child Victims Act raised the statute of limitations for civil claims of child sex abuse to age 55. Victims above that age will have the window to initiate their litigation.
If the archdiocese, and other institutions, are denied coverage of those claims by insurance companies, they'll have to foot the bill during the one-year window and for any other civil claims brought within the confines of the law.
A spokesman for the church confirmed the details of the suit Monday afternoon.
“Rather than honor its contractual obligation under the insurance policies they issued, Chubb has advised the Archdiocese that it will not stand behind its insurance policies and contractual obligations,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the archdioese. “This leaves the Archdiocese with no choice but to commence a lawsuit to ask the court to order Chubb to stand behind their insurance policies.”
The lawsuit is seeking to have the court strike down the reasoning by Chubb and INA for denying coverage and refusing to defend the church, and then to have that decision applied to each of the other insurers named.
A spokesman for Chubb declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying that company policy precludes them from speaking on open litigation. It's unclear if the company has yet retained counsel for the litigation.
The New York archdiocese includes Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island in New York City and Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties.
READ MORE:
Cuomo Signs Bill to Open Window for Lawsuits Over Child Sex Abuse
NY Lawmakers Approve Bill Opening Window for Child Sex Abuse Cases, Cuomo's Signature Expected
NY Set to Open Window for Lawsuits by Child Sex Abuse Victims
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Navigating AI Risks: Best Practices for Compliance and Security
- 220 New Judges? Connecticut Could Get Wave of Jurists
- 3Orrick Loses 10-Lawyer Team to Herbert Smith in Germany
- 4‘The US Market Is Critical’: KPMG’s Former Head of Global Legal Services On the Legal Arm of the Big Four Firm Entering the US
- 5Justice Marguerite Grays Elevated to Co-Chair Panel That Advises on Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250