In 2018, a shooting spree at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, resulted in 17 deaths and multiple injuries. Sixty lawsuits were subsequently filed against the Sheriff of Broward County, alleging negligent failure to secure the school. The Sheriff held an excess liability insurance policy with Evanston Insurance Company that provided coverage for ultimate net loss exceeding a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) for each occurrence. The policy defined an occurrence as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. After the shooting, Evanston issued reservation of rights letters stating that each gunshot causing injury constituted a separate occurrence, meaning the Sheriff would have to pay dozens of $500,000 SIRs before coverage triggered. The Sheriff sued for a declaratory judgment, arguing the entire shooting was a single occurrence. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff, ruling the term was ambiguous and that the controversy was ripe for adjudication. Evanston appealed, challenging both the jurisdiction to hear the declaratory judgment and the interpretation of the policy.
The Eleventh Circuit first addressed Evanston's argument that the case was not justiciable because the Sheriff had not yet incurred judgments exceeding the SIR. The court rejected this, holding that a justiciable controversy exists when there is a substantial likelihood of future injury. The Sheriff had already spent over $500,000 in claim expenses defending the lawsuits, which satisfied the SIR for a single occurrence. Furthermore, the Sheriff presented evidence that he had satisfied the annual aggregate deductible through other covered claims during the policy period. The court found these facts sufficient to establish standing, noting that the test for declaratory relief is forward-looking and does not require a final liability judgment against the insured. On the merits, the court analyzed the definition of occurrence under Florida law, focusing on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Koikos v. Travelers Insurance Co. The court clarified that Koikos did not hold as a matter of law that each gunshot is a separate occurrence. Instead, Koikos found the term ambiguous because it could reasonably refer to the entire shooting spree or to each separate shot. Under Florida's contra proferentem rule, ambiguous insurance terms must be construed in favor of the insured. The court rejected Evanston's reliance on GuideOne Elite, noting that subsequent Florida Supreme Court decisions like Taurus Holdings clarified that Koikos was decided on ambiguity grounds. Consequently, the court construed the term occurrence in favor of the Sheriff, ruling the Parkland shooting was one occurrence. Finally, the court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, finding that Evanston's letter threatening to deny coverage until multiple SIRs were exhausted constituted an incorrect denial of benefits under Florida statutes.
The decision confirms that mass casualty incidents involving a single perpetrator and a continuous course of conduct may be treated as a single occurrence under Florida insurance law if the policy language is ambiguous. This limits the financial burden on insured public entities by requiring only one self-insured retention to be exhausted before excess coverage applies. The ruling also reinforces that insurers may be liable for attorney's fees if they threaten to deny coverage based on an interpretation of policy terms that is later found to be incorrect. The case is remanded to the district court to enforce the award of attorney's fees and costs, though the underlying coverage dispute is resolved in favor of the Sheriff.