Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Sheriff of Broward County in a dispute over excess insurance coverage arising from the 2018 Parkland school shooting. The court held that the declaratory-judgment action presented a justiciable controversy and that the policy term "occurrence" was ambiguous under Florida law, requiring construction in favor of the insured and treating the shooting as one occurrence. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees and costs under Florida law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Sheriff's declaratory-judgment action presented a justiciable controversy under Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act before final judgments or settlements in the underlying tort actions.
- Whether the term occurrence in Evanston's policy was ambiguous under Florida law and, if so, whether the Parkland shooting constituted one occurrence.
- Whether the Sheriff was entitled to attorney's fees and non-taxable costs under Florida insurance-fee statutes based on Evanston's position that coverage would not apply until multiple self-insured retentions were exhausted.
Holdings
- The Sheriff established a justiciable controversy because the facts showed a substantial likelihood of future injury and a real and immediate dispute over the parties' coverage obligations; a final judgment or settlement in the underlying liability actions was not required.
- Under controlling Florida law, the policy's definition of occurrence was ambiguous as applied to the Parkland shooting, and the ambiguity had to be construed against Evanston and in favor of coverage. Construed in the Sheriff's favor, the entire Parkland shooting constituted one occurrence, triggering only one self-insured retention.
- Florida's rule construing ambiguous insurance-policy provisions in favor of the insured applies without a sophisticated-insured exception on the showing made here, and the court would not use extrinsic evidence of the parties' supposed intentions or expectations to resolve the ambiguity.
- The Sheriff was entitled to attorney's fees and non-taxable costs because Evanston's letter constituted an incorrect denial or threatened denial of benefits and the Sheriff obtained a favorable coverage judgment.
Key quotations
“The policy’s definition of occurrence as applied to the facts of this case is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (29)
“Because the term “occurrence” is ambiguous, we must construe it in favor of the insured Sheriff.” (35)
Factual background
On February 14, 2018, a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killed 17 people and injured others. The Sheriff faced approximately 60 lawsuits alleging negligent failure to secure the school after the shooting began and incurred more than $500,000 in defense fees and costs. Evanston's excess policy applied a $500,000 self-insured retention separately to each occurrence, and Evanston took the position that each injury-causing gunshot or victim constituted a separate occurrence.
Procedural history
The Sheriff filed a declaratory-judgment action in Florida state court concerning whether the Parkland shooting was one occurrence under Evanston's excess policy and whether one self-insured retention applied. Evanston removed the action to the Southern District of Florida, moved to dismiss, and later filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The district court denied Evanston's motions, granted summary judgment for the Sheriff, and awarded attorney's fees and costs. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.