Delaware HB75 Would Permanently Eliminate the Civil SOL for Childhood Sexual Abuse, With No Filing Deadline

Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-07-10

What HB 75 Would Do and Why Permanent Elimination Is Different

Delaware's HB 75, pending before the state General Assembly in 2026, would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims permanently. Under current Delaware law, survivors of childhood sexual abuse have a filing window, but that window has a hard close date based on age or discovery. HB 75 would remove the deadline entirely, meaning a survivor could file a civil lawsuit against an abuser or an enabling institution at age 30, 50, or 70, with no legal bar based on when the abuse occurred.

The distinction between a lookback window and permanent SOL elimination is significant for survivors, institutions, and the legal system alike. Lookback windows, like those in Rhode Island and California currently open in 2026, create a temporary period during which previously time-barred claims can be filed. Once the window closes, the SOL is reinstated. Permanent elimination means there is no window that can close, no deadline that expires, and no urgency to act within a government-defined timeframe. Survivors retain control over their own timeline for seeking accountability.

This approach reflects a growing consensus among civil justice advocates and some legislators that imposing any time limit on childhood sexual abuse claims is itself a form of institutional protection. Psychological research on trauma responses consistently shows that the average period before disclosure of childhood sexual abuse is years or even decades after the abuse, meaning any statutory deadline will inevitably bar a substantial proportion of survivors from civil recourse regardless of how generously it is structured. Eliminating the deadline entirely is the logical endpoint of that reasoning.

Delaware's Earlier Civil Accountability Record and What HB 75 Builds On

Delaware was one of the first states to enact significant civil accountability legislation for sexual abuse survivors. Its 2007 Child Victims Act created a two-year lookback window that produced more than 100 lawsuits, many against Catholic Church institutions and other organizations. That window established Delaware as a model for what civil revival legislation could accomplish and generated significant national attention. The state's willingness to revisit the question with HB 75 reflects the evolution of the civil accountability framework over the nearly two decades since that pioneering legislation.

The practical impact of Delaware's earlier legislation was substantial. Settlements and verdicts in Delaware cases held institutions accountable in ways that state criminal prosecution often could not, because many of the relevant individuals had died, evidence was too old for a criminal standard of proof, or the institutional defendants themselves rather than individual abusers were the appropriate target. Civil law operates on a preponderance of evidence standard and allows survivors to name institutions directly, making it a more accessible and often more powerful tool in many historical cases than the criminal justice system.

HB 75 would extend that framework to its logical limit. Rather than creating another window with a closing date, the legislature is being asked to permanently remove the deadline, acknowledging that the original rationale for those deadlines, protecting defendants from stale claims, should not apply when the defendant is a powerful institution that actively concealed abuse and suppressed disclosures over decades.

What Permanent Elimination Means for Institutions Operating in Delaware

If HB 75 passes, every institution operating in Delaware that has records of historical childhood sexual abuse complaints would face indefinite civil exposure. The practical consequence is that dioceses, private schools, boarding schools, youth sports organizations, and other entities with historical claims would need to assess their legal risk in a fundamentally different way than under a window-and-close structure. Institutions that believed their exposure was bounded by a statute of limitations would need to reassess.

Insurance carriers writing liability coverage for educational and religious institutions in Delaware would also need to factor in the indefinite tail of exposure that permanent SOL elimination creates. The California experience, where multiple lookback windows produced the Archdiocese of San Francisco's proposed $395 million settlement and the Archdiocese of New York's proposed $800 million settlement, shows the scale of institutional exposure that meaningful civil reform can generate. Delaware institutions watching those developments would have reason to evaluate their own historical records.

For survivors, the passage of HB 75 would mean that a decision about whether to pursue civil accountability could be made on their own terms, in their own time, when they are ready. That structural shift from a deadline set by the legislature to a timeline set by the survivor is what makes permanent SOL elimination qualitatively different from any window-based approach. This article is general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney advertising.

How HB 75 Fits Into the Broader 2026 Legislative Landscape

Delaware is not alone in considering this approach. Several states are examining permanent SOL elimination as an alternative to repeated window legislation that requires ongoing renewal and leaves survivors racing deadlines. The national movement that produced Rhode Island's two-year window, California's AB 250 adult survivor lookback, and New York City's GMVA revival window has been building momentum for more durable structural reform that does not expire.

Federal legislation is also in play in 2026. H.R. 5560, the Statutes of Limitation for Child Sexual Abuse Reform Act, has been introduced in the House of Representatives and would provide grants to states to eliminate both criminal and civil statutes of limitations and revive previously time-barred claims. Virginia's Law, introduced in the Senate, would allow adult survivors of sexual abuse and trafficking to file civil claims without any time limit at the federal level. These federal proposals reinforce the momentum building at the state level.

Delaware's HB 75 represents the leading edge of that movement at the state level: not a window, not a temporary reprieve, but a permanent structural commitment to keeping courts accessible to survivors regardless of when they are ready to come forward. Whether it passes in 2026 will have implications well beyond Delaware, as other states watch whether the permanent elimination model holds up legally and politically.

Five Ways Permanent SOL Elimination Differs From a Lookback Window

The distinction between a lookback window and permanent elimination of the civil statute of limitations matters enormously for survivors, institutions, and the civil justice system. Here is how they compare.

1. No deadline pressure: A lookback window imposes a closing date; survivors must act within the window or lose the opportunity. Permanent elimination means survivors can make decisions on their own timeline without any government-imposed clock running against them.
2. No legislative renewal required: Lookback windows often require legislative renewal to stay open or reopen after they close. Permanent elimination does not sunset, meaning survivors are not dependent on future political will to maintain their access to courts.
3. Stronger institutional deterrence: When institutions know their historical exposure is permanent and not bounded by any window, the deterrent against concealing future abuse is stronger. There is no expiration date on the accountability.
4. Broader pool of eligible survivors: Any survivor of childhood sexual abuse in Delaware would be eligible regardless of when the abuse occurred or their current age. Window-based laws often have specific date ranges or categories that can inadvertently exclude some survivors.
5. More durable legal foundation: Permanent elimination through legislation or constitutional amendment is generally more resistant to legal challenge over time than a window law passed as ordinary legislation, particularly once the initial retroactivity challenges have been litigated.

Related