Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
As LAUSD battles insurers, taxpayers left with bill for teacher sex abuse settlements

When the Los Angeles Unified School District reaches a settlement with victims who experienced sexual abuse in its schools, who pays? Or, more to the point: who should pay?
L.A. Unified officials contended their insurance policies should've covered the $200 million it cost to settle abuse cases from Miramonte Elementary School in 2014. Last year, the district sued 27 insurance companies that L.A. Unified believes "abandoned the school district, forcing it to defend itself and utilize its own much needed resources" to mount a defense and settle the cases.
Now, on the heels of another $88 million settlement with victims from De La Torre and Telfair elementary schools, district officials said they have gotten no indication that their insurers intend to participate in those settlements either — meaning, once again, taxpayers could end up on the hook.
"We’re asking [LAUSD's insurers] to participate in the eventual payout for those settlements," said Greg McNair, chief business and compliance counsel for L.A. Unified. "They have not agreed to do so as of yet. If they don’t soon agree to do so, we will file lawsuits against those insurers, just like we filed lawsuits against the insurers for the Miramonte lawsuit."
But in their own court filings related to the Miramonte case, one of the district's insurers argued it's not clear the policies they sold to L.A. Unified cover the district's settlement costs.
In their own 2013 lawsuit, Everest National Insurance Company questioned whether the costs L.A. Unified incurred in settling the Miramonte cases exceeded their "self insured retention" — roughly analogous to the deductible on an auto or homeowner's policy — of $5 million. (Exceeding that "deductible" through either defending or settling the case, McNair said, triggers the insurance coverage.)
L.A. Unified asserted that it exceeded that amount in 2012 by replacing all faculty and staff at Miramonte following the two suspected abusers' arrests. But Everest attorneys dispute this, writing in their court filing that L.A. Unified never provided sufficient clarification to make it clear they had exceeded the self insured retention amount.
As the insurance company's attorneys wrote, Everest "disputes that there is any coverage under the Everest policies for the underlying claims" in the Miramonte case.
With the legal dispute dragging on — the next court date isn't until August — the district has had to pay Miramonte settlements out of its general fund.
"The insurance companies have deprived the district of its ability to use this money in the classroom by their failure to live up to their obligation to provide insurance for these incidences," McNair said.
Settlements in abuse cases are generally paid out in a lump sum, McNair said; if the victim is young, the settlement typically covers the cost of an annuity. In the most recent high-profile cases, the district has paid out into a qualified settlement fund for victims, he said. A retired judge then oversees the disbursement of money from that fund.
For decades, the district has had several layers of insurance coverage that would handle liability claims, with each policy generally covering a one-year timespan. In a sexual abuse case, the year in which the abuse occurred determines which policy would, in theory, cover the claim.
L.A. Unified paid roughly $5.4 million in premiums on insurance that would cover abuse cases during the 2015-16 school year.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.