Modifies provisions relating to civil actions for childhood sexual abuse
Summary
HB1132 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s civil childhood sexual abuse statute, section 537.046, to remove the current time limits for filing a damages action based on childhood sexual abuse. Under the bill, a claim for injury or illness caused by childhood sexual abuse could be commenced at any time, rather than being subject to the existing deadline tied to the plaintiff’s age and discovery of the abuse-related injury.
The bill also defines “childhood sexual abuse” by reference to a range of sexual offense statutes and clarifies that recoverable injury or illness may be physical or psychological. It applies retroactively to actions commenced on or after August 28, 2004, including claims that would have been barred under the prior statute of limitations. However, the bill’s reenactment is contingent on voter approval of a separate constitutional amendment authorizing retrospective laws for civil childhood sexual abuse claims.
Impact
HB1132 would significantly expand civil liability exposure for alleged perpetrators and potentially related defendants by eliminating the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse civil claims. It would alter section 537.046, RSMo, to allow claims to be filed without regard to the plaintiff’s age or discovery date, and it would revive certain previously time-barred claims if the contingent constitutional amendment is approved. The bill affects survivors seeking damages, defendants in civil abuse litigation, insurers, and institutions that may face revived or newly filed claims.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote history, or recorded opposition in the provided materials, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or resistance. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at expanding access to civil remedies for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, suggesting a remedial and survivor-focused policy approach. Because the bill is contingent on a constitutional amendment, it also reflects an awareness of potential legal concerns about retroactive application.
Contention
The main point of contention is the retroactive revival of claims that would otherwise be barred by existing limitation periods, which can raise fairness, due process, and reliance concerns for defendants and institutions. Another likely issue is the bill’s contingent effective date, which ties the statute’s operation to voter approval of a constitutional amendment permitting retrospective civil laws in childhood sexual abuse cases. Supporters would likely emphasize survivor access to justice and the delayed nature of abuse reporting, while opponents would likely focus on finality, evidentiary problems, and exposure to stale claims.