Your principles are subjective. Very nice. You didn't see fit to seek damages at the time, but waited several years, before the statute of limitations ran out to sue.
If you were a principled person, your view of the congregation would have zero to do with whether you felt they were liable for the damages. Obviously you didn't feel they were liable at the time, but as your animosity toward the congregation grew, and after you left, you felt you could go back and grind an axe. I'm glad I don't know you.
I dunno, dispite what I just said. (Which I was serious about by the way. I would never let anyone in my car or on my property if I knew they sued over that.) I think that's a bit harsh.
They STRONLY discourage pressing charges, even when they are warrented. You're not supposed to sue a brother. So now that the threat of being shunned is gone, that doesn't mean his principles have changed, it just means he's now free to act on them without the horrible consequence of loosing contact with everyone he cares about.
This is why child abuse cases stay hidden for so long. Even though the person SHOULD have pressed charges at the time, they feel like they can't because of the social pressure to just 'forgive and forget'.