Raymond Dapo v. State of Alaska, Office of Children's Services and Taun Lucas
454 P.3d 171
Alaska2019Background
- Raymond Dapo was adopted by Taun Lucas in 2002 and alleges she sexually abused him shortly after adoption; criminal charges against Dapo as a juvenile were later dropped.
- Dapo sued Lucas for sexual abuse in 2015; Lucas asserted a third-party apportionment claim against the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) and assigned that claim to Dapo in exchange for a release.
- OCS moved to dismiss the apportionment claim as barred by Alaska’s ten-year statute of repose, AS 09.10.055; the superior court ultimately dismissed the claim after remand.
- The Alaska Supreme Court considered whether the statute of repose applies to apportionment claims, whether exceptions (gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty) save the claim, and whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied.
- The Court held the statute of repose does apply to apportionment claims, that the as-applied challenge fails, and that material factual questions remain about whether the gross-negligence and fiduciary-duty exceptions apply; it reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AS 09.10.055’s 10-year statute of repose bars a third-party apportionment claim | Dapo: statute’s text omits apportionment claims; apportionment should not be time-barred | OCS: statute bars actions ‘‘for personal injury’’ and thus apportionment tied to such injuries | Held: statute of repose applies to apportionment claims tied to personal-injury claims (apportionment barred when underlying claim would be barred) |
| Whether apportionment claim falls within gross-negligence exception | Dapo: OCS’s pre-placement conduct amounted to gross negligence and caused the harm | OCS: no gross negligence as a matter of law; duty ended at adoption | Held: factual disputes exist on duty, breach, causation and whether conduct was a "major departure" — remand for factfinding |
| Whether apportionment claim falls within breach-of-fiduciary-duty exception | Dapo: OCS owed fiduciary-like duties to children in its custody; breach fits exception | OCS: State relationship not necessarily fiduciary; exceptions inapplicable | Held: Court treats OCS–child relationship as fiduciary for this exception and leaves factual determination to the trial court |
| Whether applying the statute of repose is unconstitutional as-applied (denies access to courts) | Dapo: barring the apportionment claim effectively blocks his recovery unless the State or adoptive parent sues themselves | OCS: Dapo had opportunity after reaching majority to sue within repose period; no state action blocked access | Held: as-applied challenge rejected — plaintiff’s claim against Lucas remained timely and the repose statute’s limits do not unconstitutionally block access here |
Key Cases Cited
- Reasner v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 394 P.3d 610 (Alaska 2017) (remand required to determine whether statute of repose applies before deciding as-applied challenge)
- Alaska Gen. Alarm, Inc. v. Grinnell, 1 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2000) (third-party apportionment accrual and statute-of-limitations reasoning)
- Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2002) (recognizing legislature can alter common-law discovery rule and statute-of-repose effect)
- R.E. v. State, 878 P.2d 1341 (Alaska 1994) (agency licensing duties and obligation to detect sexual abuse)
- P.G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 4 P.3d 326 (Alaska 2000) (special relationship and duty to prospective foster parents and children)
- B.R. v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 P.3d 431 (Alaska 2006) (special-protective duty can overcome statutory immunity for assaults)