MIAMI (Legal Newsline) - A man who waited nearly 20 years to sue the Catholic Church over his alleged abuse by a priest can proceed with claims the church committed intentional infliction of emotional distress even though his negligence claim is barred by the statute of limitations, a Florida appeals court ruled.
The state’s four-year deadline for filing negligence lawsuits was partially lifted by the Florida Legislature in 2010 when it said victims of childhood abuse whose claims were valid by that year can sue whenever they want, Florida’s Third District of Appeal ruled in a March 22 decision.
A plaintiff identified as John Doe sued the Miami Archdiocese in 2021, claiming he was abused by an unnamed priest between 1999 and 2001, when he was seven to nine years old. Doe had two counts, one for negligently failing to protect him from the priest, and another for emotional distress by giving the priest access to children despite “credible accusations and physical evidence of child sexual abuse.”
A trial court dismissed the case, citing Section 95.11 of the Florida Statutes, which sets a four-year statute of limitations, which in Doe’s case started running in 2001.
The appeals court agreed the negligence claim was properly dismissed. But it reversed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, citing an amendment the Florida Legislature added to Section 95.11 in 2010. That eliminated the statute of limitations for claims based on sexual battery of children under 16 as long as they were valid as of July 1, 2010.
Another part of the statute, 95.11(7), says plaintiffs claiming intentional abuse can sue for up to seven years after reaching the age of majority. The Archdiocese argued the abuse referenced in 95.11(7) only applies to individuals, not institutions. But the appeals court disagreed, citing yet another statute, Section 39.01, which defines abuse as “any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual abuse.”
“Nothing in this definition limits abuse only to such acts by an individual abuser as opposed to an institution,” the appeals court ruled