BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 924
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 924 (Beall) - As Amended: June 11, 2014
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote: 7-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill extends the statute of limitations for civil actions
involving childhood sexual abuse for abuse that occurs on or
after January 1, 2015, from eight years after the plaintiff
reaches the age of majority (26), or within three years of the
discovery of the psychological injury (delayed discovery),
whichever is later, to 22 years after the plaintiff reaches the
age of majority (40), or within three years of discovery,
whichever is later.
This bill also exempts, from the Government Tort Claims Act,
claims referenced above against a local public entity, thereby
applying the extended statute of limitations to public schools
as well as private institutions.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown annual state trial court costs, potentially in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the extent extending the
statute of limitations results in additional civil cases. For
example, if this bill results in 10 additional cases that
average two weeks of court time, annual costs could be in the
range of $400,000.
Court costs would be higher or lower depending on the number
of cases, the types of cases, and how cases are handled. Some
cases would be settled without significant court time. Some
may be grouped together. Others may require lengthier hearings
and trials.
2)Indeterminable, potentially significant, out-year costs to
local school districts, to the extent prospective sex abuse
SB 924
Page 2
offenses are committed and civil litigation is successfully
brought outside the current statute of limitations. To the
extent civil judgments cannot be absorbed by school districts
and the state must make loans or augment appropriations, there
could be a state fiscal impact.
In addition, to the extent an extended statute of limitations
affects liability insurance premiums, school district could
experience unknown, potentially significant, costs related to
procuring liability insurance, apart from any claims.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The statute of limitations regarding child sexual
abuse has been amended repeatedly as it applies to third
parties. Prior to 1998, actions against third parties who were
legal causes of the abuse had to begin within a year of the
plaintiff's 18th birthday. In 1998, the law was amended to
allow the same time limits against third parties as against
the abuser, provided that the suits were commenced before the
plaintiff's 26th birthday (AB 1651, Ortiz). In 2002, the law
was amended to allow delayed-discovery suits (cases in which
the plaintiff discovers psychological damage within three
years of the offense) against third parties after the
plaintiff's 26th birthday under specified conditions, and to
allow a one-year revival of actions against third parties that
were otherwise expired under the SOL. (SB 1779, Burton).
The author notes the evolution of the law and contends
increased understanding of the related issues warrants
additional changes, specifically an extension of the statute
of limitations to protect victims. According to the author,
"Medical research shows that psychological injuries stemming
from sex abuse often emerge well past the age of 26. However,
existing law has lapsed into obsolescence, failing to keep
pace with proven medical science and fact. The statute of
limitations must be extended to make it relevant to California
and for the sake of the victims whose lives have been scarred
by childhood sexual abuse."
2)SB 924 addresses concerns raised in the governor's veto of a
related bill last year. In his veto of SB 131 (Beall) last
year, the governor issued a lengthy 14-paragraph veto message.
SB 924 attempts to address concerns referenced in the veto by
(a) applying the extended statute of limitations only to new
SB 924
Page 3
offenses, post-January 1, 2015; (b) applying the extended
statute of limitations to all parties, including the
perpetrator of the abuse; and (c) applying the extended
statute of limitations to all local public entities to ensure
children abused in a public school benefit from the extended
statute in the same manner as children abused in a private
school.
3)The Government Tort Control Act governs damage claims brought
against public entities. The Act requires a claim relating to
a cause of action for death or for injury to a person be
presented in writing to the public entity within six months of
the date upon which the cause of action would be deemed to
have accrued. In Shirk v. Vista Unified School District
(2007), the California Supreme Court held that,
notwithstanding the childhood sexual abuse statute of
limitations timeframes in current law, and the delayed
discovery provisions, an abuse victim must follow the
six-month presentation rule in the Act and therefore cannot
take advantage of the delayed-discovery rule otherwise
applicable to abuse victims.
The Legislature, however, in 2008 waived, prospectively, the
local government six-month notice of claim limitation that
applies to all other tort claims for victims of child sexual
abuse. (SB 640 (Simitian), Statutes of 2008.) Thus, victims
have the same time period to file a claim against local public
entities as against private institutions. SB 924 extends
the SB 640 exemption to cases filed under the extended statute
of limitations proposed in the bill. Thus public schools are
included, like private schools, in the extended statute.
State government entities, however, such as the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Mental
Health, and the Department of Social Services are not.
SB 924 opponents cite the non-inclusion of state entities as a
fundamental flaw in the bill. SB 924, however, merely applies
the existing SB 640 exemption to the Government Tort Control
Act for local public entities to the proposed statute of
limitations extension.
4)Support includes the Santa Clara County District Attorney, the
Child Abuse Prevention Center, Consumer Attorneys of CA,
Restorative Justice International, American Association for
Marriage and Family Therapy, Crime Victims of CA, the CA
SB 924
Page 4
Association of Nonprofits, and the CA Police Chiefs
Association, which states, "Victims routinely need decades to
arrive at the psychological place where they can come forward.
Abbreviated statutes of limitations mean there will be no
justice at all. Moreover, perpetrators and their enablers
remain cloaked in secrecy, which leads to perpetuated cycles
of abuse; as years pass, perpetrators and enablers remain
unidentified, and more and more children fall prey."
5)Opposition includes the California Catholic Conference, the CA
Association of School Business Officials, the CA School Boards
Association, and the CA Association of Joint Powers
Authorities. The Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF), a joint
powers authority comprising a significant number of public
school districts for the purpose of creating a statewide
school excess liability insurance pool, contends this bill
will result in increased claims and legal costs, including
liability premiums, if such coverage even remains available.
According to SELF, "?passage of this legislation will have a
"chilling" effect on school insurers that will drive up
insurance rates, institute hard caps on exposure, or result in
outright exclusions, placing a school agency's financial
solvency at risk."
SELF acknowledges the absence of any figures upon which to
base an estimate.
6)Previous Legislation .
a) SB 131 (Beall), 2013, the statute of limitations for
childhood sexual abuse civil actions be retroactively and
provided a one-year revival of certain otherwise
time-barred claims. This bill was vetoed.
b) AB 1628 (Beall, 2012) would have extended the statute of
limitations in child sex abuse civil cases to 35 years of
age, prohibited confidential settlements, and imposed new
duties on private entities. The bill was held on this
committee's Suspense File.
c) SB 640 (Simitian), Statutes of 2008, provided child sex
abuse claims arising out of conduct after January 1, 2009
are not subject to the Government Tort Claims Act, which
requires a claim against a public entity be presented
within six months of accrual.
SB 924
Page 5
d) SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia), Statutes of 2002,
provided claims against a third party did not lapse when
the plaintiff turned 26, but only if specified requirements
were met. It also revived certain expired claims for one
year.
e) SB 674 (Ortiz), Statutes of 1999, made statutes of
limitations for childhood sexual abuse cases against third
parties retroactive.
f) AB 1651 (Ortiz), Statutes of 1998, extended the statute
of limitations in actions against third parties, requiring
any action against a third party had to be commenced before
the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081