A bill to more than quadruple the time childhood sexual abuse victims have to sue their abusers stalled this week in the Missouri Senate after Democrats accused insurance lobbyists of using it to impose shorter limits on personal injury lawsuits.
It’s the fourth year Republican state Rep. Brian Seitz of Branson has sponsored legislation aiming to increase the window for childhood sexual abuse survivors to file civil claims. And it’s the second year that proposal has been combined with legislation that would reduce the statute of limitations for personal injury claims — part of an effort by lawmakers to stave off opposition from the insurance lobby.
Seitz, who has attributed past failures of his legislation to opposition from the insurance industry, told The Independent that a “slight decrease” in the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is worth “a victory for victims of child sexual abuse.”
Critics say shortening the window to file personal injury claims would rob Missourians of the ability to hold organizations or companies accountable for financial, physical or psychological harm. And insurance lobbyists, they argue, are using it as leverage in a way that could sink childhood sexual abuse legislation with wide bipartisan support.
The bill as introduced this year would have shortened the statute of limitations for most personal injury claims from five to two years, but Seitz said he negotiated to bring the limit to three years. It would reduce that window for uninsured motorist claims from 10 to three years. And while the House passed a version of the bill in March that would increase the childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations from 10 to 20 years after the survivor turns 21, the Senate amended the bill to allow survivors to file claims until age 65.
Democratic state Sen. Karla May of St. Louis told The Independent that the personal injury claims portion of the bill “needs to die” and that insurance companies are “holding these children hostage” with the measure.
“Why should we compromise?” she said.
Missourians need a remedy for child sex abuse victims, not the law on personal injury claims, she said.
“If we try to reduce the time period from five to three [years], that only benefits insurance companies and corporations,” May said.
During a Senate hearing on the bill earlier this month, insurance lobbyists argued that the personal injury portion of the bill would help attract businesses to Missouri.
Hampton Williams, government affairs director for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, told The Independent in an email that lawmakers had been “responsive to the concerns raised about the downstream effects that unlimited liability windows have had on small businesses, child care facilities, nonpublic partners and the availability of affordable liability coverage that good actors depend on to operate.”
The bill also won support from State Farm, the Missouri Association of Insurance Agents, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Missouri Association of RV Campgrounds.
Republican state Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair, the bill’s handler in the Senate, told The Independent that above all, he is “in support of getting this child sex abuse statute of limitations reform across the finish line.”
On the personal injury claims provision, Hudson said, “I’m not saying that I’m opposed to the policy. I’m not saying I’m in support of the policy.”
The childhood sexual abuse portion of the legislation has repeatedly won broad support among lawmakers. The bill passed the House 95 to 12 in March, with 38 Democrats and one Republican voting present. But the inclusion of the personal injury claims provisions raised objections.
Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin of Ste. Genevieve asked why the provisions were added.
“It seems like we might have log-rolled this issue onto your bill, which was fantastic, to potentially try to get something that might be a little more controversial along the line,” Wolfin said.
Sara Schuett, executive director of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, told The Independent that “insurance companies are the ones stopping good language from moving forward.”
A House committee amended the initial bill to specify that the extended statute of limitations would apply to claims against non-perpetrators — including people who aided in abuse or hindered prosecution — only if they had been found “criminally responsible.” Survivors can currently file civil claims against non-perpetrators within five years.
Seitz has said his bill was inspired by revelations of sexual abuse of children who attended Kanakuk Kamps near Branson. Pete Newman, the former director of the Christian sports camp, pleaded guilty in 2010 to seven counts of sexual abuse and is serving two life sentences plus 30 years in prison.
Evan Hoffpauir told Missouri lawmakers in 2023, the first year Seitz filed his legislation, that he believed for over a decade that Newman had acted alone when he sexually abused him. By the time national investigations uncovered evidence that camp leadership knew about Newman’s nude activity with campers and failed to act, Hoffpauir was too old to sue the camp.
Schuett said the language in the bill protects people who knew kids were being assaulted, since it’s “almost impossible” to meet the standard of evidence needed to find a third party criminally responsible.
“A lot of them knew, or should have known, that this was taking place, and they shouldn’t be protected just because a victim needs more time to work up the courage to confront them and hold them accountable,” Schuett said.
Seitz said he still has hope that the legislation will pass.
But the legislation could face a steep climb in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose anything but a “clean” bill stripped of the personal injury claims language. Republicans did not rush to defend the legislation while Democrats filibustered.
Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck, an Affton Democrat, said support for the childhood sexual abuse measure is bipartisan.
“If they brought up a clean bill tomorrow, we would pass it right then and there,” Beck said.
Republican state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman of Arnold raised concern during Senate debate that the proposed 44-year statute of limitations would cause innocent people to owe damages.
“I don’t have records from something that happened in the 60s and the 70s,” Coleman said. “As a person, I couldn’t prove that something didn’t happen in my home or at our farm. You have a sympathetic victim who has clearly been hurt, and you have someone who is trying to defend against that, and justice demands that we stand up not just for the victim, but also for the accused.”
Democratic state Sen. Stephen Webber of Columbia introduced an amendment during Senate debate that would have removed the personal injury changes from the bill.
But Hudson said he couldn’t support the amendment because it could jeopardize the bill if it passes the Senate and returns to the House for final approval.
“I do have some concerns, because it pulls out some portions that were already agreed to in the House,” Hudson said. “…I’m going to be leery of anything that might potentially cause a problem on the House side because I want this to become law.”
