A proposal to eliminate time limits for filing child sex abuse lawsuits in Washington has stalled in the state Senate out of worries it could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
House Bill 1618 would have applied retroactively, eliminating the state's statute of limitations for lawsuits against the state, schools, churches and other institutions that have failed to prevent abuse, or covered it up.
The proposal had been cruising through the Legislature, overwhelmingly passing the state House and a Senate policy committee. But it died this week, failing to clear the Senate Ways and Means committee ahead of an April 4 cutoff deadline.
The bill was scheduled for a vote in the committee onTuesday, but after a brief discussion of its potential costs, majority Democrats met in a closed-door caucus. When they reemerged, Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, the Ways and Means chair, announced the bill was among a few others that would not advance.
State Rep. Darya Farivar, the bill's lead sponsor, called the decision a disappointing blow to the coalition of abuse survivors, advocates and experts who had strongly backed it.
"Everyone is extremely disappointed. It was really devastating for a lot of people," said Farivar, D-Seattle. She said she'll work with supporters to reintroduce the proposal next year.
Laurel Redden, director of communications and policy for the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, which supported the legislation, said blocking the bill out of cost concerns "just feels a little wrong."
Redden said KCSARC is constantly hearing from people abused as children, who often at first are not believed, and then bottle up trauma for years.
"At some point, when they come to terms with the harm that actually happened, for them to have no door to go through ... It is like saying to a victim 'We don't take you seriously. We don't believe you, and nothing is going to happen in this case,' " she said.
Washington's current statute of limitations requires victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits within three years of when abuse occurred, or three years from when they discovered harms caused by it, such as depression, suicidality and addiction. (The clock on the time limits doesn't start ticking until people reach 18.)
HB 1618 would have entirely removed those time limits, which have been used by defendants in some cases to get lawsuits dismissed because victims disclosed their abuse years ago to counselors or therapists. The Legislature in 2019 removed the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse.
While it received widespread support at public hearings, critics warned the proposal could open up the state, school districts and other institutions to massive liability for abuse allegations from decades ago.
A fiscal analysis estimated HB 1618 would result in an additional 50 lawsuits per year to be filed against the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families, which runs the foster-care system. That would potentially cost an additional $25 million to $100 million annually in lawsuit payouts, plus millions more in legal costs, the analysis predicted.
At a public hearing last month, Tyna Ek, general counsel for the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool, pointed to other states that have loosened time limits on abuse lawsuits, resulting in a flood of new cases. Ek suggested at the hearing that lawmakers instead consider establishing a victim compensation fund.
Farivar and other supporters tried to ease the pocketbook concerns by proposing an amendment that would have eliminated the retroactivity clause while easing other legal barriers for abuse cases.
But the state's risk management office and Attorney General's Office said the amendment wouldn't diminish the price tag, according to a legislative staff analyst who briefed the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday.
"That was my fear," said state Sen. Mark Mullet, D-Issaquah, vice chair of the Ways and Means Committee, after the briefing on the amendment.
Farivar said she and other bill supporters have questions over how the cost estimates were calculated and will assess how similar laws have played out in other states.
They'll try to address the objections before the 2024 Legislature convenes next January. "Now that we have time, we'll talk with everyone and try to build the coalition," she said.
