683 S.W.3d 641
Ky.2024Background
- Plaintiff Samantha Killary alleged over a decade of sexual abuse by her adoptive father, Sean Jackman, a police officer, from 1997 to 2009.
- In 2018, Killary sued Sean Jackman and others, including Sean's girlfriend Linda Thompson, Sean's father Rick Jackman, and the Louisville Metro Government (Metro), alleging participation or failure to prevent the abuse.
- At the time her claims accrued in 2009, the statute of limitations for such claims in Kentucky was five years from her 18th birthday.
- Kentucky expanded its statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims in 2017 (from five to ten years, with new triggers for claims) and again in 2021 (explicit retroactivity and stated revival of expired claims).
- The trial court dismissed Killary’s claims as time-barred; the Court of Appeals reversed as to some defendants; the Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of 2017 & 2021 Amendments to KRS 413.249 | Statutes should revive time-barred claims | Extension can’t revive claims where limitations expired | Amendments remedial and retroactive, but can't revive expired, time-barred claims |
| Legislative Power to Divest Vested Rights | Legislature can revive actions for strong public policy | Statute of limitations defense is vested, cannot be taken | Legislature cannot impair vested limitations defense |
| Interpretation of Uncodified Limiting Language (2021 Act) | Codified claim-revival should prevail | Non-codified LRC note shows no intent to revive expired claims | LRC note is valid, intent evident—revival limited to unexpired claims |
| Application to Government Entity & Sovereign Immunity | Metro's immunity waived by retroactive statute | No such retroactive waiver, immunity stands | Metro’s immunity not retroactively waived; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Dep’t. of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000) (retroactivity only where legislature's intent is clear or statute is remedial and does not create new rights)
- Cassity v. Storms, 64 Ky. 452 (Ky. 1866) (legislature cannot revive time-barred claims unless expressly provided, and even then is constitutionally suspect)
- Lawrence v. City of Louisville, 29 S.W. 450 (Ky. 1895) (statute of limitations defense is a vested right that cannot be legislatively impaired)
- Overstreet v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship, 479 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2015) (de novo review on questions of law concerning statutes of limitations)