Ecclesiastical claims approach under fire from abuse survivor

Julian Whiting claimed to have previously been assaulted by Derek Fullarton, a top adviser at Lambeth Palace, in 2009.

Whiting claimed he met Fullarton at a hotel bar in London to talk through his experience of being raped by an older pupil and sexually abused by choir masters at The Blue Coat School in Birmingham when he was a student in the 1970s.

Following this, Whiting claimed Fullarton became ‘predatory’, groping him while making “a kissing face” in full view of others at the busy bar.

Whiting received compensation and funded therapy from Lambeth Palace, insured by Ecclesiastical, following this complaint.

2023 assault claim

Whiting claimed to have been assaulted once again in 2023 by a different priest after a breakfast meeting at a bar in London’s Sloane Square.

He reported the assault to the police and the priest was then questioned and admitted to the incident, but the case was subsequently dropped.

When Whiting complained to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, it was concluded the case was closed without a thorough investigation and his complaint was upheld.

The priest, who has another report relating to sexual assault against him, is still operating as a prominent member of the Parish Council.

Vicarious liability will not attach in this scenario due to this meeting not being in connection with his [the priest’s] activities in relation to his role at the church.

Jeremy Trott, Ecclesiastical

But when Whiting submitted a new claim following the 2023 incident, Ecclesiastical rejected it, prompting him to ask whether Ecclesiastical has changed its approach, policy wording or internal guidance on clergy-related abuse claims.

In email exchanges seen by Insurance Post, Ecclesiastical’s claims director Jeremy Trott said the claim was repudiated “based upon what we consider to be the correct application of the law in relation to Ecclesiastical’s policyholder”.

When asked to elaborate on its interpretation of the law, Ecclesiastical declined to comment.

Trott conceded there was an incident but said: “Vicarious liability will not attach in this scenario due to this meeting not being in connection with his [the priest’s] activities in relation to his role at the church.”

They took my report seriously enough to fund therapy, yet not seriously enough to deal with the claim properly.

Julian Whiting

However, text exchanges seen by Post confirm the meeting was set up to speak about church business.

Whiting escalated the claim to Ecclesiastical’s UK MD Richard Coleman, who responded with: “We have handled your claim in accordance with our guiding principles.”

Whiting said he was “disgusted” by the justification.

He said: “I have repeatedly tried to help the system understand how to engage with survivors more humanely, even asking to see the actual policies that supposedly govern their conduct. Yet everything remains hidden.

When asked why he thinks Ecclesiastical paid for therapy but not the claim, Whiting said it “feels like another tick-box exercise”.

He continued: “They took my report seriously enough to fund therapy, yet not seriously enough to deal with the claim properly.

“If they were never willing to see it through, then the therapy funding becomes little more than a gesture. It’s as if they want to appear compassionate without actually taking responsibility.”

Changing policy

So, given Ecclesiastical paid the previous claim relating to the incident back in 2009, but has not paid the claim for the incident in 2023, what has changed?

When asked whether Ecclesiastical had changed the relevant policy wording to exclude any claims relating to sexual assault from priests if they do not occur at the church or if they feel the priest is not acting in their role at the time, a spokesperson responded: “We have developed an approach to dealing with these highly delicate situations to ensure we handle claims as sensitively as possible in line with our guiding principles.”

When asked whether these guiding principles were in the best interests of the victims, as opposed to the perpetrators or the church in which they operate, an Ecclesiastical spokesperson said: “Whilst we are unable to comment on specific individual cases due to their highly sensitive nature, our coverage and stance on these claims haven’t changed.

“Each claim is unique and considered based on its individual circumstances and on its own specific facts.”

Abuse history

Ecclesiastical has previously been heavily criticised by victims, Church figures and the government over its handling of non-recent child sexual abuse claims.

In 2019, then-claims director David Bonehill was questioned by prosecutor Nikita McNeill over an email from an insurance claims handler to a representative of the Church regarding the subsequent withdrawal of pastoral care from a victim of child abuse by the Church.

Then last year, it was reported that Ecclesiastical would not take part in the National Redress Scheme for victims of church-based abuse.

In a statement given to the media, a spokesperson for Ecclesiastical said the scheme “falls outside of the insurance contractual obligations to parishes and churches”.

It said: “We have given the Church’s request for us to participate in its proposed redress scheme serious consideration and engagement.

“However, there are a combination of legal and commercial reasons why this is extremely challenging and complex for any insurer, and we are therefore unable to participate in the scheme. We will continue to honour our obligations to our policyholders.”

Whiting said the treatment he has received shows “these major institutions seem to have learnt nothing”.

He said: “It should not fall on survivors to force the Church and its insurers to behave ethically. Their refusal to reflect or even acknowledge the damage caused by their own systems, is devastating.”

He said the current system “allows both sides to accept that abuse occurred, while simultaneously passing responsibility back and forth until nothing is resolved.”

Whiting will not accept any justification for making distinctions between abuse that takes place on or away from Church property

He said: “When someone meets a priest, they meet them as a priest, a person entrusted by God and the Church to minister safely.”