A federal appeals court has ruled that the Parkland school shooting counts as a single insurance claim, not dozens – a decision with big implications for insurers.
On November 10, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Sheriff of Broward County v. Evanston Insurance Company, resolving a closely watched dispute over how insurance coverage applies to the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The case turned on a question that resonates throughout the insurance industry: when a catastrophic event results in multiple lawsuits, does it trigger one insurance claim or many?
Following the Parkland tragedy, the Sheriff of Broward County was sued by victims’ families in 60 separate lawsuits, each alleging that the sheriff’s office failed to secure the school. The sheriff’s office looked to its excess liability insurer, Evanston Insurance Company, for coverage. But the two sides quickly found themselves at odds over the policy’s language.
Evanston argued that each gunshot causing injury – or each individual victim – should be treated as a separate “occurrence” under the policy. That interpretation would have required the sheriff’s office to pay a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) for each occurrence before Evanston’s coverage would be triggered, potentially leaving the sheriff’s office responsible for millions in out-of-pocket costs before any insurance payout. The sheriff’s office, however, contended that the entire shooting incident should be considered a single occurrence, meaning only one SIR and one $500,000 annual aggregate deductible would apply.
The policy at issue defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The court found this definition ambiguous under Florida law. In line with established legal principles, the court ruled that such ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured – in this case, the sheriff’s office.
Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the Parkland shooting constituted a single occurrence under the Evanston policy. This means Evanston is obligated to provide coverage after the sheriff’s office pays one SIR and the annual deductible, not multiple SIRs for each claim or victim. The court’s decision also affirmed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to the sheriff’s office, finding that Evanston’s position amounted to an incorrect denial of benefits under Florida law.
The ruling is a clear reminder to insurance professionals about the critical importance of precise policy language, especially when dealing with catastrophic events and public entity coverage. The decision underscores that ambiguous terms in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of policyholders under Florida law – a practical and financial consideration for insurers, brokers, and risk managers working with complex or high-exposure accounts.
The outcome of this case is more than just a legal technicality. It demonstrates that in the event of ambiguity, courts may side with the insured, making careful drafting and review of policy terms not just best practice, but essential risk management. As catastrophic events and mass claims become more prominent, the lessons from this case are likely to echo throughout the sector.
