Wake Chapel Church Scandal: Seduction Claim, Appeals Ruling, and Insurance Suit

The Wake Chapel Church lawsuit most people are asking about is a civil case filed by former congregant Aleah High against Bishop John Jasper Wilkins II and Wake Chapel Church, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, alleging that Wilkins groomed and sexually assaulted her beginning when she was 15. A 2022 North Carolina Court of Appeals decision allowed her core claims to proceed. A separate lawsuit involving the same church — an insurance dispute over roof damage — ended in a $1.1 million jury verdict for the church that the Fourth Circuit affirmed in February 2026.

What Aleah High Alleged

High alleged that Wilkins began grooming her in 2015, when she was 15 and a member of the congregation. According to the complaint, the grooming continued for roughly three years and led to multiple sexual encounters and assaults in 2018 and 2019.¹

She sued Wilkins personally for seduction and for sexual assault and battery. Against Wake Chapel Church itself, she alleged negligence and gross negligence under a theory of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.¹

The 2022 Court of Appeals Ruling

After the trial court let some claims proceed and dismissed others, both sides appealed. On December 20, 2022, in High v. Wake Chapel Church, Inc. II (No. COA22-358), a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion written by Judge Chris Dillon, joined by Judges Richard Dietz and Lucy Inman.²

The First Amendment Defense Failed

Wilkins and the church argued that the lawsuit would force courts to decide ecclesiastical questions in violation of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that each surviving claim could be resolved using neutral principles of law without interpreting religious doctrine.³

On the negligent supervision claim, the court said a church is subject to the same employer-liability standards as any other organization. It cited Doe v. Diocese of Raleigh (2015) and Smith v. Privette (1998) for the proposition that applying secular rules to secular conduct involving clergy raises no constitutional problem.¹

Seduction Remains a Valid Claim in North Carolina

Wilkins also argued that seduction is an archaic tort that should be abolished. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the argument but said it lacked authority to act on it. The North Carolina Supreme Court recognized the tort in State v. McKay (1932), and only the Supreme Court can abolish it.³

Under the standard set in Hutchins v. Day (1967), a seduction claim asks whether a defendant procured a sexual relationship through “deception, enticement or other artifice.” That is a neutral legal test, the court said, and does not require any inquiry into religious teachings.¹

The Precedent That Shaped the Decision

The ruling leaned heavily on Doe v. Diocese of Raleigh (2015), in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a Catholic diocese could be held liable for negligent supervision of a priest who sexually abused a minor.⁴

That decision requires a plaintiff to show the church knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of prior conduct by the clergy member suggesting a risk of harm. In Doe, the diocese’s knowledge that the priest had an “unnatural preoccupation with minors” and had allowed minors to spend the night at his home was enough to put the institution on notice.⁴

The Doe court drew a line that the Wake Chapel panel followed: decisions about hiring or ordaining a minister are protected by the First Amendment because they are inseparable from doctrine, but a negligent supervision claim asks whether the institution failed to protect against a foreseeable danger, a question answerable with ordinary tort principles.⁴

The Separate Insurance Lawsuit

The other Wake Chapel case is unrelated to the abuse allegations. After a December 2018 snowstorm, the church found long scrapes on its metal sanctuary roof. Its engineer, Lyle Hogan, testified that ice and snow sliding across the panels had caused the scratches and resulting damage.⁵

Church Mutual Insurance Company denied the claim. The insurer blamed the damage on roof installers nearly two decades earlier, who it said used a crimping machine, walked on the panels, and failed to apply a required protective coating. Church Mutual also argued the damage fell outside the policy period and was an excluded latent defect.⁶

The case went to a four-day jury trial in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The church presented repair estimates of $2.2 million and $2.5 million. Church Mutual’s own expert put the cost at $1.1 million. The jury awarded the figure Church Mutual’s expert had offered: $1.1 million.⁵

Church Mutual’s motion for a directed verdict was denied, and the insurer appealed to the Fourth Circuit. On February 19, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the verdict in full and denied the post-trial motions.⁶⁷

Where the Cases Stand

The insurance case is over, with the $1.1 million verdict for the church now final after the Fourth Circuit’s February 2026 ruling.

The civil case against Bishop Wilkins and Wake Chapel Church was sent back to the trial court after the 2022 appellate decision, with claims for seduction, sexual assault and battery, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision all cleared to proceed. The available court records do not show a final resolution through trial or settlement.

1
Findlaw. High v. Wake Chapel Church Inc. II, COA22-358
2
North Carolina Courts. Aleah High v. Wake Chapel Church Inc.
3
Reason – The Volokh Conspiracy. The Tort of Seduction Still a Thing in North Carolina
4
Findlaw. Doe 200 v. Diocese of Raleigh, COA14-1396
5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Wake Chapel Church Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 25-1485
6
Insurance Journal. 4th Circuit Backs $1.1M Roof Verdict Against Church Insurer
7
GovInfo. Wake Chapel Church Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 25-1485