## Facts

- William Picher alleged that, as a minor in the late 1980s, he was sexually abused by Father Raymond Melville, a Catholic priest.
- Picher alleged the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland (the Diocese) had notice of Melville’s prior abusive conduct before Melville’s ordination and assignment to Picher’s parish.
- Picher alleged the Diocese failed to report Melville to law enforcement and concealed Melville’s propensities from parishioners and the public.
- Picher sued Melville and the Diocese, asserting negligence-based theories (including negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty) and an intentional tort claim for fraudulent concealment.
- Melville defaulted in the trial court.
- The Diocese asserted charitable immunity under 14 M.R.S. § 158 and obtained summary judgment on all claims; the Diocese’s liability policy contained exclusions for claims relating to sexual abuse or molestation.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine’s doctrine of charitable immunity should be abrogated for negligence claims arising from the sexual abuse of a minor.
2. Whether 14 M.R.S. § 158 permits charitable immunity to bar intentional tort claims, specifically fraudulent concealment.

## Decision

- The Law Court declined to abrogate charitable immunity for negligence claims and affirmed summary judgment for the Diocese on negligence-based claims.
- The Law Court held that charitable immunity under 14 M.R.S. § 158 does not extend to intentional torts.
- The Law Court vacated summary judgment as to the fraudulent concealment claim and remanded for further proceedings limited to that claim.

## Legal Principles

- In Maine, charitable immunity remains available as a defense to negligence claims against qualifying charitable organizations absent legislative change.
- Courts will not create a subject-matter carveout from charitable immunity for particular categories of negligence claims without a principled basis applicable across negligence cases.
- 14 M.R.S. § 158 is not interpreted to extend charitable immunity to intentional torts; charitable immunity does not bar intentional tort claims such as fraudulent concealment.
- Insurance-based waiver of charitable immunity under 14 M.R.S. § 158 depends on effective coverage for the liability at issue; coverage exclusions may prevent waiver for certain claim categories.

## Conclusion

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court preserved charitable immunity as a bar to negligence-based institutional liability claims against the Diocese but held that the doctrine and 14 M.R.S. § 158 do not shield charities from intentional tort liability, allowing Picher’s fraudulent concealment claim to proceed on remand.


Picher v. Roman Cath. Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, 974 A.2d 286 (Me. 2009)