Saints and Sinners: Is an Insurance Policy Required to Indemnify the Church for the Wrongful Acts of Sexual Misconduct by Priests?

On September 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s holding in Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. created two circuit splits regarding the interpretation of Interstate Fire and Casualty Co.’s insurance policy provisions, particularly in the context of indemnification for sexual abuse settlements. Hartford held that in insurance policy interpretation the presence of an occurrence is determined by a subjective test of expectation from the standpoint of the insured. The Second Circuit also held that the assault and battery exclusion excluded only those insureds that committed the assault and battery, not all insureds on the policy. As a result, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the Archdiocese and concluded that it was entitled to coverage for its claims. This Comment argues that the Second Circuit’s interpretation accurately applied the rules of insurance policy interpretation, as well as the rules of grammar, to correctly interpret these policy provisions

Kissing the Security Blanket Goodbye: How the SECURE Act Will Affect IRA Beneficiaries’ Long-Term Financial Security

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (the SECURE Act) offers many forms of new support for retirement savings to help more Americans better prepare for their retirement. It also includes a provision that eliminates the stretch payout option for the beneficiaries of inherited individual retirement arrangements (IRAs). Prior to the SECURE Act, beneficiaries of inherited IRAs were able to capitalize on the tax-deferred savings vehicles for the remainder of their lifetimes. After the SECURE Act, the period of tax-deferred investment for beneficiaries was limited to ten years. In eliminating the stretch payout option, Congress opted for a relatively small amount of short-term revenue rather than the long-term financial security of both the IRA owner and the beneficiaries of the IRA based upon closing a perceived loophole. This decision ultimately will generate a small amount of revenue, while simultaneously having a largely detrimental impact on the beneficiaries of inherited IRAs. This Note argues that Congress should reinstate the stretch payout option for the beneficiaries of inherited IRAs to encourage saving and, in turn, protect retirees and their beneficiaries