from the claims for emo tional distress to be governed by § 511 and therefore remain timely. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. 1 “GSR” refers to galvanic skin response. See Y. Bander, Note, United States v. Posado: The Fifth Circuit Applies Daubert to Polygraph Evidence, 57 La. L. Rev. 691, 692 (1997) (explaining that a polygraph examination “measures changes in blood pressure, pulse, respiration and galvanic skin response (GSR, or sweating)”). 2 In rejecting the claim relating to 12 V.S.A. § 522, the trial court ruled that defendants here neither caused nor facilitated the sexual abuse, and therefore were not subject to the statute. Cf. Earle v. State, 170 Vt. 183, 188, 743 A.2d 1101, 1104 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Sabia v. State, 164 Vt. 293, 309, 669 A.2d
holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined holding that a hospital was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an orderly holding that although there were six occurrences under the general liability policy there was only one sexual abuse occurrence where sexual abuse occurrence was defined as a single act or multiple continuous sporadic or related acts of sexual molestation or abuse caused by one perpetrator holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that claim against state for failing to prevent sexual abuse was covered by statute