(Article from Insurance Law Alert, December 2025)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Holding
The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is obligated to pay only one self-insured retention under an excess policy because a shooting spree at a Florida high school constitutes a single occurrence for coverage purposes. Sheriff of Broward Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29494 (11th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025).
Background
A tragic mass shooting at a Parkland High School resulted in the death of 17 students and injuries to several others. The families of the victims sued the Sheriff of Broward County, alleging negligence in failing to secure the school once the incident began. The Sheriff, in turn, sought a declaration that the shooting constitutes a single occurrence under Evanston’s policy and therefore Evanston is required to pay excess judgments following payment of a single SIR. In contrast, Evanston argued that each injury-causing gunshot constitutes a separate “occurrence” as a matter of law under Koikos v. Travelers Ins. Co., 849 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2003), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that a perpetrator’s shooting of two victims at a restaurant constituted two separate occurrences under the applicable policy.
A Florida federal district court granted the Sheriff’s summary judgment motion and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida statutory law. The district court reasoned that Koikos does not stand for the proposition that each victim of a shooting constitutes a separate occurrence, but rather that the term “occurrence” is ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured.
Decision
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court noted that the Koikos decision is “no model of clarity,” but concluded it should be interpreted as holding that the term “occurrence” defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions” is ambiguous in the context of the particular shooting incident involving multiple victims. More specifically, the Eleventh Circuit explained that under Koikos, “occurrence” could mean the negligence of the insured entity in connection with the incident or the intervening acts by the gunman.
Having found ambiguity, the court ruled in the Sheriff’s favor. The court rejected Evanston’s assertion that the Florida rule of contract interpretation requiring ambiguities to be construed in favor of coverage does not apply because the Sheriff is a sophisticated insured. The court similarly refused to consider evidence of the parties’ negotiations, emphasizing that “Florida law is clear that . . . ambiguity is resolved in favor of coverage and against the insurer, without regard to extrinsic evidence or the parties’ supposed intentions or expectations.”
Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees and costs are allowable under Florida statutory law when an insurer wrongfully denies coverage. Evanston argued that while it had raised the number-of-occurrences issue in two reservation of rights letters and a subsequent communication, it had never officially denied coverage. Rejecting this assertion, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that a letter from Evanston “maintain[ing] its position that each gunshot that resulted in injury or death to a victim of the shooting constitutes a separate ‘occurrence’” constituted a denial of coverage, or at a minimum, a threat of a denial, which has been held to meet the requirements of Florida statutory law regarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
Comments
In other coverage disputes arising out of gun-related injuries, courts have reached various conclusions as to the number of occurrences, even when employing the same “cause-based” test and/or interpreting similar policy language. Outcomes turn primarily on the factual record presented, including the length of time and particular circumstances separating the injury-causing shots and the existence of intervening events.