Creates "Harter's Law" to extend the civil statute of limitations, for injuries resulting from first degree child abuse, to thirty-five (35) years.
Summary
H5177 would amend Rhode Island’s civil limitations laws to create a new provision called “Harter’s Law” for civil actions arising from first-degree child abuse. Under the bill, a civil claim for injuries resulting from conduct that violates the state’s first-degree child abuse statute could be filed within 35 years after the cause of action accrues, rather than being subject to the shorter general personal-injury limitations period. The bill also tolls the filing deadline while the injured person is a minor, meaning the clock would not begin to run until the child turns 18.
The bill also makes a related change to the general personal-injury limitations statute by preserving the existing three-year rule but adding an extension for certain direct actions against an insurer. If a lawsuit is timely filed against an insured tortfeasor, service on that person fails because the person is returned “non est inventus,” and the injured party may proceed directly against the insurer under Rhode Island law, the deadline to sue the insurer would be extended by 120 days after the normal limitations period expires.
Impact
The bill would expand the time available to bring civil claims tied to first-degree child abuse and would create a new, specific statute of limitations in Chapter 9-1 of the General Laws. It would also affect the interaction between personal-injury claims and direct actions against insurers under § 27-7-2 by giving plaintiffs an additional 120 days in certain cases where the insured cannot be served. In practical terms, the bill would increase potential civil liability exposure for alleged child-abuse conduct and provide survivors more time to seek damages.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to be framed as a survivor-focused remedy intended to expand access to civil justice for victims of child abuse. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests no clear public controversy is captured here, though the proposal would likely be viewed through the lens of balancing survivor access against finality for defendants.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the lengthening of civil exposure for conduct involving child abuse, especially the 35-year filing window and the tolling rule for minors, which could be seen as necessary for survivors but burdensome for defendants and insurers. A secondary issue is the 120-day extension for direct actions against insurers after an insured tortfeasor cannot be served, which may raise concerns among insurers about expanded litigation timelines. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided materials as supporting or opposing the bill.