An Appeals Court Just Ruled Insurers Must Cover a Church's Abuse Settlement. Here Is Why That Fight Matters to Survivors

Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-07-30

What the appeals court actually decided

This week, three appellate judges on the 10th Circuit, based in Denver, decided that National Union Fire Insurance and ACE Property and Casualty Company must cover a settlement the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reached years earlier with survivors of child sexual abuse. The panel reversed a 2025 decision from a federal trial court in Salt Lake City that had sided with the insurers.

It is important to be precise about what was, and was not, being litigated. The underlying abuse allegations were resolved back in 2013, when the Church settled a lawsuit brought by families in West Virginia rather than proceed to trial. This appeal concerned an entirely separate legal fight the Church later brought against its own insurers, after they refused to pay toward that settlement.

The underlying case, and why it never went to trial

The West Virginia lawsuit alleged that a relative of church members sexually abused several children over multiple years, and that the Church failed to take reasonable steps to protect them despite warning signs. Rather than let the case go to a jury, the Church reached a settlement with the families shortly before trial in 2013.

Settling a claim resolves a survivor's individual case, but it does not necessarily resolve how the money gets paid. Institutions frequently carry liability insurance intended to cover exactly this kind of settlement. When an insurer refuses to pay, the institution is left to either absorb the cost itself or sue the insurer, which is what happened here starting in 2023.

The real legal question: one occurrence, or many?

The core dispute in this appeal was narrow but consequential: under the Church's insurance policies, did years of alleged abuse by a single person count as one covered occurrence, or as multiple separate occurrences? That distinction affects how policy limits and obligations apply, and insurers on both sides of the industry frequently litigate it in abuse-related coverage disputes.

Writing for the panel, the appellate court found that Utah law, which governed the policies, requires ambiguous insurance terms to be read in favor of coverage. In the panel's view, an insurer that writes a policy capable of two reasonable readings bears the consequence of that ambiguity, not the policyholder. The court sent the case back to the trial judge in Salt Lake City for further proceedings on issues the lower court had not yet reached.

Why survivors should care about a fight they were not part of

Survivors and their families are rarely parties to disputes like this one, since the underlying claim was already settled years earlier. But coverage litigation like this shapes something survivors do care about: whether an institution can actually pay what it owes, and how long that process takes when insurers resist.

The panel's opinion warned that ambiguous policy language "carries a high price" for the insurer that drafted it. When institutions and insurers spend years arguing over policy wording, it is often survivors and their families waiting on the outcome, even after a settlement has technically been reached. The Church declined to comment on the ruling. The Alliance is not involved in this litigation and does not provide legal advice.

How Insurance Coverage Fights Work After an Abuse Settlement

A settlement between a survivor and an institution is often just the first stage of a longer financial fight. Here is what typically happens next.

1. The settlement resolves the survivor's claim: Once signed, a settlement releases the institution from the survivor's specific legal claims regardless of how the money is ultimately funded.
2. The institution turns to its insurer: Institutions typically expect liability insurance to cover some or all of a settlement, and submit a claim to their carrier.
3. Insurers can, and often do, refuse: Carriers may argue the conduct falls outside covered occurrences, exceeds policy limits, or was excluded entirely.
4. That refusal can trigger its own lawsuit: Institutions sometimes sue their own insurers years later, in a separate case that has nothing to do with the original survivors.
5. Occurrence language becomes the battleground: Whether years of abuse count as one occurrence or many can determine how much coverage is actually available.
6. Ambiguity often favors the policyholder: Many states, including Utah here, require unclear insurance language to be interpreted in favor of coverage rather than the insurer.

Related