xtramelanin

May 18th, 2018 at 3:46 PM ^

 and will not stop the movement through the legislature.  also, insurance industry may push some parts of it too, and they have a firm hold on a number of legislators.  (no politics)

VicTorious1

May 18th, 2018 at 4:26 PM ^

Just an FYI, UM is opposed to those two bills as well.  It's not a good look for MSU, but the legislation is problematic from the institutions' perspective for a number of reasons.  Currently if a rogue UM/MSU employee (security guard for example) committed sexual assualt by threat of a weapon while at work, and the victim was under 18 and wanted to sue UM/MSU, the victim would have to file the claim in the MI Court of Claims and comply with the filing rules of the applicable statute (i.e., within 1 year after the claim accrued and the claim would be time barred unless instituted within 3 years after the claim accrues). 

Under the proposed new statute, this victim could sue UM/MSU for their employee's conduct at anytime (even 50 years later).  You can see why most public institutions would be opposed to this legislation.  It's still asinine to include it in the settlement agreement from a PR perspective.

OwenGoBlue

May 18th, 2018 at 5:31 PM ^

The problem with statutes of limitations involving minors is precedent shows us children who are sexually assaulted rarely come forward until they are well into adulthood, if they even come forward at all. As the statutes currently exist, they harm those who are victimized as children (particularly young children) the most. 

Also the rogue employee example is trotted out by opponents of this kind of legislation but it's not a good one. Institutions aren't on the hook for big payouts because someone did something they couldn't have foreseen, they're on the hook for what they did or didn't do after receiving reports of sexual assaults or other crimes

I understand the institutional opposition as they don't want added risk exposure. That doesn't mean the opposition is defensible. 

bronxblue

May 19th, 2018 at 11:28 AM ^

Yeah, it's why the victims' attorney didn't seem particularly bothered by it. As always, MSU made the dumbest possible PR decision and won't even be able to benefit from what they are trying to accomplish.

PopeLando

May 18th, 2018 at 3:49 PM ^

The very next paragraph: "“The only area they agreed not to pursue actively was the bills dealing with governmental immunity,” Manly continued. He noted that bills related to governmental immunity were unlikely to pass, with or without the survivors’ advocacy; practically speaking, the survivors didn’t lose anything by agreeing to this condition. “The truth is, nothing was given up,” he said." They can still advocate for reform and consequences. Fuck MSU

CarrIsMyHomeboy

May 18th, 2018 at 3:56 PM ^

Her statement : I am very grateful to have reached a settlement with MSU that reflects the incredible damage which took place on MSU’s campus. I am thankful that the litigation phase is over so that my sisters and I can move forward. I remain deeply disappointed at the missed opportunity for meaningful reform at the University. My choice to come forward publicly against Larry, and later against the institutions that allowed him to prey on children for decades, was motivated by the need for accountability and reform, so that other little children don’t live the nightmares we lived. This is a passion all of the Sister Survivors share, and one which has not diminished or changed. “Moving forward”, for myself and many others, means continuing to advocate, call for accountability, and stand for those who have yet to have a voice. This includes continuing to advocate for desperately needed accountability and change at USAG and in the USOC. I remain disappointed that resolution was not reached with these other organizations who also enabled a serial predator for decades. I am deeply aware that behind me and my sisters are hundreds of survivors who still have no voice. Who still have no access to the court systems because of outdated and archaic criminal and civil statutes of limitations – some of the worst in the entire country. I renew my call, therefore, for the MI House of Representatives to stand for these survivors, ask themselves “what is right?” and “What does the data truly show?”, and pass the reform package we so desperately need as a first step in legislative reform. The litigation phase is over, but the fight for change and accountability, the fight to give survivors a voice and protect the next generation, has only just begun. We intend to stand united with, and for, ALL survivors of abuse as we work together towards these goals. I am also deeply grateful for the journalists who worked so tirelessly to find and tell the truth so that reform can come. Please continue this fight with us. Sexual assault and the cultural and institutional dynamics that allow it to flourish are everywhere, and need to be uncovered and exposed in all their ugliness. To everyone who has supported us and pushed with us for reform, please know how much your voices have meant to me, and to all of us, through this process. Please keep standing with us – there is so much left to be done.

Catchafire

May 18th, 2018 at 3:56 PM ^

MSU is extremely shitty in this and how it has been handled.  Compared to PSU, I am completely shocked at how "light" MSU has gotten off.

jbrandimore

May 18th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^

It literally makes no sense for MSU to care about which laws the legislature passes or not, as none of them would apply to this situation.

However, John Engler very likely does care, and I'm concerned he has some fucked up back door deal cooked up with his buddies in Lansing that if he can detrail this reform package, the legislature will use taxpayer funds to pick up the tab for the settlements.

 

 

SFBlue

May 18th, 2018 at 5:05 PM ^

Hmmmm... is Sparty an insurance company now, too? This is how they roll. We will settle and pay the 100s of millions we owe your policyholders, but you have to agree to never sue our family of companies again.  

Craptain Crunch

May 19th, 2018 at 8:29 AM ^

From what I have read, insurance isn't covering this. And I don't believe ANY insurance company has insurance against rape. 

 

Interim President John Engler has long said the costs will be covered by tuition and state aid. Lawmakers have said no state aid should be used. 
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/fox59/2018/05/16/larry-nassar-settlements-cost-michigan-state-500-million/615592002/

So, you can bet that MSU will start sending out fund raising letters to its alums asking to help pay off the victims! It will be interesting to see how much money MSU is going to raise.

SFBlue

May 19th, 2018 at 11:38 AM ^

There could be coverage. Catholic Church carriers were tapped for some of the abuse. This is similar. From the perspective of MSU it’s not necessarily an intentional act.

xtramelanin

May 19th, 2018 at 11:48 AM ^

intentional infliction of emotional distress, they will have alleged negligent hiring/supervision/training, and negligence can get coverage.  however it would be juxtaposed against immunity from negligence that state institutions have for almost all of their functions.