As tens of thousands of Child Victims Act cases work their way through the courts, competing judicial decisions prompt additional considerations from higher courts and the Maryland General Assembly.
Passing the Child Victims Act
The General Assembly enacted the Child Victims Act (CVA) of 2023 to significantly expand the ability of survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue civil claims. The law eliminated Maryland’s civil statute of limitations for claims arising from child sexual abuse going forward and created an opportunity for survivors whose claims had previously expired to seek damages in court. The legislation also established new limits on damages depending on whether the defendant is a private institution or a public entity.
For state and local governments as well as the local boards of education, the damage cap was initially increased from $400,000 per claimant to $890,000, by legislation that passed during the 2023 legislative session – HB 1. In 2025 the Maryland General Assembly acted again and, in part, rolled those new caps back again (with prospective effect for new cases not yet filed) – via HB 1378. The standard today, according to the 2025 bill’s fiscal note, is back down to $400,000 per claimant if the action had previously been time-barred prior to the 2023 legislation but not filed before June 1, 2025 and $890,000 per claimant for new claims and for those already filed before June 1, 2025 but had been previously time-barred.
Cases Filed Across State and Local Public Entities
Since taking effect on October 1, 2023, the law has prompted hundreds of lawsuits against public institutions across Maryland – primarily state agencies, like the Department of Juvenile Services, and local school systems. County and municipal government entities have also seen a limited number of claims, but not nearly at the volume of the State or school systems. Those agencies with some, but less regular, interactions with juveniles have tended to be police departments, detention centers, and parks and recreation agencies. Many county governments have no claims filed against them.
County Liability and Individual Employee Conduct
Many of the cases against government entities do not prompt a defense of an employee that is alleged to have committed abuse. The abuse of a child falls clearly and well outside the scope of an employee or government contractors duties. Instead, plaintiffs typically allege that the county could bear responsibility for failing to adequately supervise employees, respond to warning signs, investigate complaints, implement appropriate policies, or protect children placed in its care. As a result, litigation often focuses not only on the alleged acts of an individual, but also on whether the government entity fulfilled its broader responsibilities to prevent foreseeable harm.
Who Represents Government Defendants?
Representation of government defendants varies depending on the entity involved. For the few county government cases, those are initially represented by their offices of law or county attorneys, and in some instances could include outside counsel. State agencies are generally represented by the Office of the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorneys General assigned to those agencies. State cases in some instances could also employee private counsel.
Local governments and boards of education may also receive defense through insurance or risk-sharing organizations such as the Local Government Insurance Trust (LGIT) or the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), which can litigate the cases or retain experienced outside counsel to handle more complex litigation. As these cases have expanded in size and complexity, numerous private law firms with experience in governmental liability and civil litigation have also been engaged to assist in defending some public entities.
What’s Happening With These Cases In The Courts Right Now?
One of the central legal questions has been how the CVA interacts with Maryland’s longstanding doctrines of sovereign and governmental immunity. In a recent decision, – Board of Education for Wicomico County v. Rhonda B. Sturm (Sturm) – the Maryland Supreme Court concluded that the General Assembly established different legal frameworks during various phases of the legislature, resulting in different liability limits depending on when an incident took place and which statutory provisions applied at that time. The Court examined the legislature’s amendments to waiver provisions and damage caps over time and established that just because the General Assembly removed the statute of limitations in 2023, both versions of the CVA did not address or waive sovereign immunity and liability caps that were available at the time of the incident.
The Sturm decision effectively held that immunity had not been waived for claims against the local boards of education arising from conduct before 1971, because that is the time at which the legislature partially waived that immunity and required the boards to carry liability insurance of $100,000 for claims. This allows the board to return to the lower courts with a request to dismiss the case. This also poses the question as to whether cases against the boards of education, where an incident occurred during the time when the insurance requirement was $100,000, can be retroactively subject to the new $400,000 cap.
The Sturm case is not however the only question needing to be answered regarding CVA cases and governmental immunity. A recent petition by the Maryland Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the state agencies, is asking the Maryland Supreme Court to also considered the state’s sovereign immunity for claims prior to 1982, when the Maryland Tort Claims Act was established. If a similar logic to Sturm is applied, this could bar claims for incidents that took place before the 1982 legislation. The Maryland Supreme Court will hear arguments on this question in the Fall during the 2026 term but even still it is unclear how those conclusions could apply to the pending local government cases. For the state, it could mean that for some of the oldest cases, no claim is allowable, and for those incidents that took place as partial governmental immunity was waived, the caps that were in place at that time might be the maximum recoverable amount for a plaintiff. Those amounts range from $0 to $100,000, $400,000, and $890,000.
Funding Judgments Raises Difficult Budget Questions
Regardless of how the litigation ultimately concludes, any judgments or settlements involving public entities must be funded through existing governmental resources, insurance coverage, or other legally available funding mechanisms. For counties, that may include insurance proceeds, self-insurance funds, reserve accounts, or appropriated local revenues, depending on the circumstances of each case. At the state level, funding could involve appropriations from the State budget or other available resources. Because both State and local governments operate under balanced budget requirements and finite revenues, overwhelming judgments or settlements could upend future fiscal planning and compete with funding priorities for education, public safety, infrastructure, health services, and other essential public programs.
The fiscal implications of these cases will likely remain a significant consideration for both state and local governments. Counties have limited authority to generate new revenue, and many jurisdictions are already at or near Maryland’s statutory cap on local income tax rates, leaving relatively few options to absorb substantial, unanticipated liabilities without affecting other vital services. At the state level, policymakers are already grappling with significant structural budget challenges, independent of any potential CVA liabilities. Those fiscal pressures will likely become an increasingly important part of the policy discussion as litigation progresses.
The magnitude of the pending litigation underscores the uncertainty ahead for the state budget. The State reportedly faces roughly 12,000 claims under the Child Victims Act, and while the ultimate outcome of those cases—including questions of liability, damages, settlements, and the application of statutory caps—remains unknown, each claim carries the potential for substantial financial exposure under current law, even if claims before 1982 are barred. How any future judgments or settlements would ultimately be funded, and whether additional legislative or budgetary responses may be needed, are questions that will likely remain on the minds of legislators during the 2027 and, potentially, 2028 legislative sessions.
Conclusion
Several important legal and policy questions remain unresolved for two reasons. One, the lower courts in Maryland have issued conflicting decisions regarding the state’s sovereign immunity for claims prior to 1982 and, two, the school board liability framework for post-1971 claims is thus not settled by the Sturm opinion. Both will likely require either further litigation or drive action by the General Assembly to resolve this issue with more certainty. Both outcomes could have implications for judgement caps the county governments can be subject to as wells as immunity standards.
The Maryland Supreme Court is expected to hear additional arguments to settle the contradicting opinions in the state’s cases, and that decision could provide further direction regarding sovereign immunity and damages available against public entities. Depending on the outcome, the General Assembly may consider legislative changes during the 2027 session to address issues identified through the ongoing litigation or clarify aspects of the law. Until then, courts across Maryland will continue processing hundreds of pending cases while governments, insurers, and policymakers closely monitor the evolving legal landscape.
