Modifies provisions relating to childhood sexual abuse actions, including the application of nondisclosure agreements in such actions
Summary
SB 590 rewrites Missouri’s civil statute governing lawsuits for childhood sexual abuse. It updates the definition of “childhood sexual abuse” by cross-referencing a revised set of criminal offenses, and it preserves the ability of a plaintiff to recover damages for physical or psychological injury caused by abuse suffered before age 18. The bill keeps a discovery-based limitations rule: an action must be filed within 10 years after the plaintiff turns 21, or within 3 years after the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that the injury or illness was caused by childhood sexual abuse, whichever is later.
The bill also changes the effective reach of the statute by making the revised section apply to actions commenced on or after August 28, 2025, including claims that would have been time-barred under prior law. In addition, it adds a new rule that nondisclosure agreements are not judicially enforceable, and are void, in disputes involving childhood sexual abuse allegations or claims. This would limit the use of confidentiality agreements to silence survivors or restrict litigation over abuse claims.
Impact
SB 590 would amend section 537.046, RSMo, affecting civil claims for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse and the statute of limitations for those claims. It would also invalidate NDAs in childhood sexual abuse disputes, altering the enforceability of private settlement terms and potentially increasing the ability of survivors to bring or discuss claims in court. The bill primarily affects survivors of childhood sexual abuse, alleged perpetrators, institutions or employers that may face civil liability, and parties who use confidentiality agreements in resolving abuse allegations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill caption and text, the measure appears to be framed as a survivor-protective reform, expanding access to civil remedies and limiting confidentiality barriers. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence here to show support or opposition. The overall direction of the bill suggests a generally favorable posture toward plaintiffs and survivors, with the main policy emphasis on access to justice and transparency.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the retroactive application to claims that would otherwise have been barred, the extended limitations period, and the prohibition on enforcing nondisclosure agreements in childhood sexual abuse disputes. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to give survivors a meaningful opportunity to sue and speak publicly, while opponents may argue they increase litigation exposure, undermine finality in settlements, and impair contractual confidentiality. The bill’s changes to the underlying offense cross-references may also draw technical scrutiny, but the central policy dispute is over survivor access versus legal certainty and settlement enforceability.