Maryland's top court just drew a hard line for school boards and their insurers: no insurance, no fund, no case.
On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that the Board of Education for Wicomico County keeps its immunity from tort suits over abuse alleged to have occurred before July 1, 1971. The reason is insurance.
The case began when a former student sued the board on May 28, 2025 under the state's Child Victims Act of 2023. She alleged that a teacher at her elementary school abused her while she was a student between 1967 and 1971. The allegations were never tested. The court dismissed the case on immunity grounds without ever reaching the facts.
The 2023 Act erased all time limits on child sexual abuse claims. The real question was whether it also opened school boards to liability for decades-old conduct. The court said no - not because the claim was too old, but because there was no money to pay it.
That is where insurance comes in. The court held that "the only mechanism the General Assembly has provided for county boards of education to satisfy tort judgments is by authorizing and requiring county boards to procure comprehensive liability insurance." The state first mandated that coverage effective July 1, 1971, with limits up to $100,000 per injury. Those limits later climbed - to $400,000 per occurrence in 2016, then to $890,000 for child sexual abuse claims under the 2023 Act.
None of it reaches back before July 1, 1971. The board argued its older policies, many long gone, never covered pre-1971 conduct, and that such coverage would be impossible to buy today. With no policy to respond and no fund or taxing power to tap, the court found no effective waiver of immunity.
For insurers, that makes coverage the whole ballgame. Because the court treated insurance as the sole route to paying these judgments, whether a responsive policy exists - and how far back its retroactive date reaches - can decide whether a public entity ever answers a revived abuse claim.
The plaintiff argued the county could fund any judgment or shift budget money. The court turned that down, calling the coverage theory "speculative" and refusing to order discovery.
The court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice - reopening the door only if lawmakers ever fund claims like this one.
