Joe Grundy:
I appreciate your respectfulness. I am just repeating the rulings that both trial and appeal courts have rendered in the United States. Courts have ruled that just the association to an organization does not mean that the organization has a fiduciary duty to their members.
Lewis v. Bellows Falls Congregation
Holdings: The District Court, J. Garvan Murtha, J., held that:
1 alleged conduct by church did not create fiduciary relationship between church and congregant;
2 church allegedly had duty to provide reasonable supervision of its minister;
3 no special relationship existed between the church and its minister, as required to give rise to church's duty to control minister;
4 church had no duty to protect congregant; and
5 church had no separate duty to warn its congregants, distinct from a duty to protect.
In Anderson v Watchtower the court wrote this:
The court in Moses first recognized that the relationship between a clergyman and parishioner was normally one involving trust and reliance, but further held that in order to be liable for a breach of fiduciary duty, the superior party must “assume a duty to act in the dependent party's best interest,” Moses, 863 P.2d at 322, language which is parroted in Ms. Anderson's allegations. The Moses court also found, however, that there must be an assumption of duty and that “[o]nce a member of the clergy accepts the parishioner's trust and accepts the role of counselor, a duty exists to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the parishioner.” Moses, 863 P.2d at 323 (emphasis added).
DeCorso v Watchtower:
Further, because the present case does not involve a minor child, it does not involve a “justifiable trust confided on one side” and a “resulting superiority and influence” on the other. This court declines to read specific requirements for a fiduciary relationship in a religious context into Connecticut law. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the fourth count of the revised complaint is granted.
Conti v Watchtower:
Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Siggins, J., held that:
1 congregation elders did not have any duty to warn the congregation about member's past child sexual abuse;
2 congregation elders did not have any duty to warn child congregation member's parents about member's past child sexual abuse;
3 elders did not have any duty under the negligent undertaking doctrine to warn parents about member's past child sexual abuse;
4 organization and congregation had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise field service of member with history of child sexual abuse;
These are just from a quick search in WestLaw. And again like I said, these firms obviously think that they can overcome it, but it is going to be an uphill battle. They will have to overcome a lot.