Professional Liability

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was recently tasked with determining whether the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL constituted a single occurrence or multiple occurrences pursuant to a commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued to the Sheriff of Broward County. This was particularly significant as the insurance policy provided coverage only after a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) and a $500,000 deductible were paid by the insured. If the mass shooting constituted multiple occurrences, the insured would have been required to satisfy the $500,000 SIR for each claim before the insurer would be obligated to pay any covered damages. The CGL policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition.”

While the insurance company relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Koikos v. Travelers Insurance Co., 849 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2003) for its argument that the Parkland mass shooting constituted multiple occurrences, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insured and found the policy’s definition of “occurrence” to be ambiguous. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit explained that any ambiguity in an insurance policy is to be construed in favor of the insured. As such, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Parkland mass shooting was a single occurrence for the purposes of the CGL policy issued by Evanston. While the Supreme Court in Koikos decided that a restaurant shooting in which two patrons were struck by two separate gunshots were two separate occurrences, it did so only as a result of finding the term “occurrence” to be ambiguous. 

Despite the fact that the ruling in Koikos resulted in a finding of multiple occurrences and the ruling in this matter found the mass shooting to be a single occurrence, the decisions do not conflict. Rather, the Eleventh Circuit followed the Florida Supreme Court’s Koikos decision as it found the almost identical definition of the term “occurrence” to be ambiguous and, therefore, construed in favor of the insured. In the Koikos case, construing the ambiguity in favor of the insured resulted in the outcome being multiple occurrences. In the present case, construing the ambiguity in favor of the insured resulted in the outcome being a single occurrence. 

---

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – December 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}