Dеfendants, Daniel DeHart (DeHart), First United Methodist Church of Greeley (Church), аnd Rocky Mountain Conference of the United Methodist Church (Conference), appealed the judgment of the trial court finding them liable to plaintiff, Christa G. Bohr-er. Plaintiffs claims arose out of DeHart’s sexual abuse of her while she was a minor, beginning while DeHart was a youth minister еmployed by the Church, which is a member of the Conference.
In a previous opinion,
Bohrer v. DeHart,
Our analysis in reaching these results was consistent with part of the analysis articulated by another division of this court in
DeBose v. Bear Valley Church of Christ,
On petitions and cross-petitions for certio-rari in this case, the Colorado Supreme Court vacated our judgment and rеmanded the cause to us for reconsideration in light of its recеnt decision in Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, supra.
Upon that reconsideration, we reach the same conclusion we reached in our previous opinion. In rеversing the decision in DeBose v. Bear Valley Church of Christ, supra, the supreme court did not reject or critiсize the portion of the analysis in that opinion upon which we rеlied in part in our earlier opinion in this case. Having again reviewed that analysis, as well as the supreme court’s decision in Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, supra, we find nо basis for reaching any conclusions different than we have previously reached.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our eаrlier opinion, the judgment of liability against DeHart on the claims for brеach of fiduciary duty, outrageous conduct, and punitive damagеs, the judgment of liability against the Conference on the claim for nеgligent hiring and supervision, and the award of costs jointly and severally against all defendants are affirmed. The judgment of liability on the claims аgainst the Conference for breach of fiduciary duty and for punitive damages are reversed. The compensatory and punitivе damage awards against DeHart and the Conference are also reversed. The cause is remanded for a new trial to allocate fault among defendants, to determine compеnsatory damages to be awarded against DeHart and the Confеrence, to determine punitive damages to be awarded аgainst De-Hart, and to determine whether and, if so, in what amount, punitive dаmages should be awarded against the Conference, consistent with the views expressed in our earlier opinion.