The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office in a legal dispute with Evanston Insurance Company over coverage related to the tragic 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The court affirmed a lower court’s decision that the shooting constituted a single “occurrence” under the county’s excess insurance policy, entitling the Sheriff to coverage after paying a single deductible. This ruling means the Sheriff can now move forward with the coverage to cover the costs of the lawsuits filed against the department after the shooting.
The Heart of the Dispute: “Occurrence” Defined
The central issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the term “occurrence” within the Sheriff’s excess insurance policy with Evanston. The policy stated that Evanston would cover “ultimate net loss” exceeding a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) for each “occurrence,” plus a $500,000 deductible.
Following the Parkland shooting, which resulted in 60 lawsuits against the Sheriff alleging negligence, a disagreement arose. Evanston argued that each gunshot causing injury constituted a separate “occurrence,” meaning the Sheriff would have to pay multiple SIRs before Evanston’s coverage kicked in. The Sheriff, however, contended that the entire shooting was a single occurrence, requiring only one SIR payment.
The District Court’s Ruling: Ambiguity Favors the Insured
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida sided with the Sheriff, granting summary judgment in his favor. The court found that the definition of “occurrence” in the Evanston policy was ambiguous under Florida law. Because of this ambiguity, the court ruled that the term must be interpreted in favor of the insured, in this case, the Sheriff. This meant the Parkland shooting was considered a single occurrence, triggering coverage after the Sheriff paid a single SIR and the deductible. The court also awarded the Sheriff attorney’s fees and costs.
Evanston’s Appeal: Challenging Jurisdiction and “Occurrence” Interpretation
Evanston appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit, raising several arguments. First, Evanston claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction, arguing the Sheriff’s claim was seeking an advisory opinion because the Sheriff hadn’t yet paid the multiple SIRs that Evanston claimed were due. Evanston also argued that the Parkland shooting constituted multiple occurrences. Finally, Evanston argued that even if there was ambiguity, the policy should not be construed in favor of the Sheriff because he was a “sophisticated insured.”
The Eleventh Circuit’s Affirmation: Justiciable Controversy and Clear Interpretation
The Eleventh Circuit, after careful review, rejected Evanston’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court found that the Sheriff had established a justiciable controversy, meaning the dispute was real and immediate enough to warrant a declaratory judgment. The court noted that the Sheriff had already spent over $500,000 in attorney’s fees defending the Parkland lawsuits, demonstrating a substantial likelihood of future financial injury.
The appeals court also agreed with the district court’s interpretation of “occurrence.” The court held that the definition of “occurrence” was, in fact, ambiguous under Florida law. Applying the legal principle of “contra proferentem,” which dictates that ambiguous insurance policy terms are construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage, the court concluded that the Parkland shooting should be considered a single occurrence. This meant the Sheriff was only obligated to pay one SIR, plus the deductible.
The appeals court also dismissed Evanston’s argument that a “sophisticated insured” exception should apply. The court noted that Evanston failed to cite any Florida Supreme Court or appellate court cases supporting such an exception.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Correct Denial of Benefits
Finally, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Sheriff. The court found that Evanston, through its communications, had effectively denied coverage, triggering the attorney’s fees provision under Florida law.
This case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous language in insurance policies, particularly in the wake of a tragedy.