NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT RULES SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS ARE TIME BARRED FROM PURSUING THEIR CLAIMS~3 min read

The New Hampshire state legislature passed a law removing the statute of limitations as a defense for civil actions involving sexual assault and related offenses in 2020. The New Hampshire Supreme Court was recently asked to apply this law to revive a claim for sexual assault which was not filed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in place at the time. The Court determined that applying the 2020 law retroactively and using it to revive a claim for sexual assault that had expired prior to the 2020 law taking effect would violate Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution. For this reason, the Court declined to apply the statute to the expired claim and dismissed the case.

The plaintiff filed suit against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester, Camp Bernadette, and Camp Fatima, Inc., raising claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an employee who allegedly sexually assaulted him when he was a minor attending the summer camp in the 1970’s. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the trial court. The trial court found that applying the 2020 version of the statute to a time-barred claim would violate the defendants’ constitutional rights to rely on the statute of limitations defense. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court was mistaken when it found that applying the 2020 version of the statute retroactively would deprive the defendants of their constitutional rights and that the defendants’ vested right in a statute of limitations defense outweighed the plaintiff’s right to recover in the civil action.

The applicable statute of limitations that applied when the plaintiff turned 18 provided that the plaintiff had until he turned 20 to file a suit stemming from a sexual assault which allegedly occurred when he was a minor. There was no dispute that this statute of limitations for this claim expired in 1986 and that the plaintiff did not file a claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The dispute in this matter was whether the 2020 version of the statute, which eliminated the statute of limitations for sexual assault and related claims, should be applied to revive the claim in this matter, which had expired when the plaintiff did not file the claim by 1986.

The plaintiff argued that the Court should determine that there is not a vested right to a statute of limitations defense in civil matters involving sexual assault and related claims. In considering this question, the Court had to determine whether the applying the statute in the manner suggested by the plaintiff would take away or impair vested rights. A vested right is an entitlement that is fully and unconditionally secured and cannot be taken away. The protection of these rights, such as the right to receive retirement benefits, is necessary in order to provide adequate protection for the individual possessing the vested right.

The Court found that the defendants’ right to rely on the statute of limitations defense vested when the statute of limitations expired in 1986 when the plaintiff had not yet filed suit. Therefore, the Court found that applying the statute in the way suggested by the plaintiff would deprive the defendants of a vested right, which would be unconstitutional.

The plaintiff also argued that the prevalence of delayed disclosure in matters involving sexual assault should be taken into account in determining how to enforce the law. The Court recognized that delayed disclosure is very common in sexual assault cases and recognized the particularly challenging nature of these claims but declined to enforce the statute as the plaintiff requested. In making this finding, the Court determined that the statute specifically mentioned that the enactment of retrospective laws was prohibited in “civil causes.” The Court determined that the intent of the legislature was clear because it specified that laws are not to be applied retroactively in civil actions, without making any specific carve-out for a particular type of civil action.

If you are looking to bring a claim and wondering how this ruling could potentially impact you, our experienced attorneys can help. Please contact our office to schedule a consultation.