In an age of frequent mass shootings, insurers cannot escape coverage by arguing that each pull of the trigger
was a “separate occurrence” unless the policy unambiguously says s
o, a federal appeals court held this week in a case stemming from the deadly 2018 high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
“Because under controlling Florida law, ‘occurrence’ is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the
insured, the district court did not err by concluding the Parkland shooting was one occurrence under Eva
nston’s policy and granting summary judgment for the Sheriff on that b
asis,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in Broward County Sheriff vs. Evanston Insurance Co.
The decision could hold significance for excess and governmen
t coverage and could provide another guidepost for insurers on clearly worded policy language.
The excess policy purchased by the sheriff’s office in 2017
had a policy limit of $2.5 million. The sheriff was self-insured up to $500,000, and the policy had a $500,000 deductible.
The sheriff had stationed a deputy as a school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School i
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
n Parkland. After a teenaged gunman opened fire in 2018, killing 17
students and teachers and injuring others, the sheriff faced as many as 60 lawsuits from families of the victim
s, who argued that the resource officer had acted negligently and failed to stop the killings.
Evanston, a Markel Group subsidiary, essentially denied liability and legal defense coverage, contending that the “separate occurrence” clause mean that e
ach injury or death constituted a separate incident – meaning the $500,000 deductible and $500,000 self-ins
urance retention had to be met for each injury claim before coverage would kick in. By that measure, the sherif
f’s office would have needed to spend as much as $60 million on legal costs and judgments before Evanston provided coverage.
Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony and his attorneys argued that the shooting was a single occurrence and that the ret
ention and deductible had been exceeded by the multiple lawsuits and legal fees. The sheriff asked the trial court t
o declare that Evanston must provide coverage. The trial court, the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida, agreed in 2024
, finding that the Evanston policy did not clearly define a “separate occurrence,” and any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured.