House Judiciary Committee hears competing views on two‑year 'reviver' window and related constitutional amendment

The House Judiciary Committee heard detailed testimony in Harrisburg on proposed legislation and a constitutional amendment that would open a two‑year window for survivors to file civil claims for childhood sexual abuse and would waive sovereign immunity in some cases.

Committee Chair Chairman Kauffman presided over the hearing and Representative Davidso​n, the bill’s prime sponsor, said he would reserve most remarks for the committee’s upcoming voting meeting and that the day’s purpose was to hear survivors and experts.

Supporters told the committee the measure would let people whose claims are now time‑barred come to court and hold institutions accountable. Lara St. John, a professional violinist who said she was abused while a student at the Curtis Institute of Music, described reporting efforts to school officials that she said were ignored and said a civil remedy is necessary to obtain “true justice in court.” Professor Marcy Hamilton, founder and CEO of Child USA, said a window is a modest, incremental reform that allows past victims a remedy while the state continues prevention work and extended prospective statutes of limitation. “What window legislation does is provide a solution for the ones from the past,” Hamilton told the committee.

Opponents focused on constitutional and practical objections. Carrie Silverman, counsel for the American Tort Reform Association (ATTRA), testified the proposal raises serious constitutional issues because it would retroactively remove vested rights and revive time‑barred negligence claims. Silverman cited Pennsylvania case law and named Lewis v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company and a 2008 Condaras decision as on‑point precedents, saying Pennsylvania courts have long treated the running of a statute of limitations as yielding vested expectations for both plaintiffs and defendants. Silverman warned that reviver windows in other states produced a large volume of claims and fiscal strain, citing Maryland’s experience—“about 4,000 lawsuits” within a year of a reviver—along with published budget estimates of multi‑billion dollar impacts.

Committee members questioned witnesses on legal precedent and the practical effects of revival. Representative Bonner asked Silverman for cases that support the constitutional position; Silverman pointed to Lewis and Condaras. Representative Klunk, who chairs the House Children and Youth Committee, emphasized concerns raised by child services providers about rising liability insurance costs and said she had worked on related liability and cap legislation.

Hamilton and St. John urged lawmakers to balance concerns about institutions and insurers with survivors’ delayed disclosure and lifelong harms. Hamilton said Pennsylvania has extended prospective statutes of limitation to age 55 for current victims but argued that a reviver window addresses victims from the distant past who cannot otherwise access the courts. She also disputed the claim that revivers are uniformly unconstitutional, saying no state court has held that a window is categorically invalid under its remedies clause.

The hearing combined survivor testimony, legal analysis, and policy forecasting. Witnesses on both sides referenced out‑of‑state experiences and court rulings to support their positions.

Committee Chair Kauffman closed by noting the required hearing had been completed and reminded members that a voting meeting to consider both the statute (House Bill 462) and the constitutional amendment (House Bill 464) is scheduled for 10 a.m. tomorrow in 660 East Wing.