A Survivor in New York was recently awarded $30 million by Supreme Court Justice Meagan K. Galligan.  Represented by Pfau Cochran Vertitis Amala, the Survivor was abused at a Boy Scout Camp by the defendant who was unlawfully posing as a doctor.   Details of this case can be read via this link.  Please be aware that details may be difficult to read and re-traumatizing for some Survivors.  From that article, Ben Watson an attorney representing the Survivor commented “This verdict is a major victory for Mr. Pringle and for survivors across New York.  It also sends a clear message to any individual or institution that believes they can get away with the sexual abuse of children: the law will hold you accountable.”

In what is a victory for all Survivors who find themselves part of a Diocese bankruptcy, a Survivor abused by a Diocese of Winona NY priest has been awarded $7.6 million by a jury.  This is an important development because the defendant in the lawsuit was US Fire Insurance, an insurer who chose not to settle with the Official Committee of Survivors in the Winona bankruptcy.  Now, that insurer is liable for this settlement and the costs associated with its defense.  Further information regarding the Winona decision can be found at Survivor Abused by Diocese of Winona Priest Sees Victory in the Courtroom, Awarded $7.6 Million – Jeff Anderson and Associates

Adversary Proceeding: In April 2025, the Committee filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese in an action that is proceeding parallel to the Archdiocese’s bankruptcy case. This parallel action (also known as an “adversary proceeding”) was filed by the Committee to specifically address the issue of charitable immunity. In Maryland, the doctrine of charitable immunity acts as a bar to recovery of any Archdiocese assets that were received by way of charitable donations. The Committee is seeking a finding from the court that charitable immunity will not preclude such available assets to Survivors in the bankruptcy case. Recently, a scheduling order was entered that dictates the timeline for this proceeding. If the parties proceed to trial, the scheduling order contemplates that trial will take place in December 2025. The timeline is subject to change and depends on how the case progresses.