Plus, plaintiff firms & their referral vendors sued by condo association
A federal appeals court sides with Broward County Sheriff’s Office in an insurance dispute from the 2018 Parkland school shooting, huge allegations leveled against almost all parties involved in a Jacksonville condominium community’s hurricane claim dispute, and a Florida family gets their insurance company to pay their attorney fees after winning in a wind damage dispute. It’s all in this week’s Legal Briefs.
The school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the shooting, February 14, 2018
Parkland Shooting Insurance: Last week, a federal appeals court gave a win to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office in a case regarding the 60 lawsuits filed in the wake of the tragic 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Families of the victims filed suits against the sheriff’s office citing negligence from the school resource officer, who did not enter the building. The sheriff’s office had an “excess” insurance policy with Evanston Insurance Company, meaning coverage would start after the office paid the first $500,000 in costs for an “occurrence” and a $500,000 deductible. The sheriff’s office filed a claim with Evanston for payment under the policy – which it argued was a singular occurrence. The insurance company disagreed, positing that each gunshot was a separate occurrence, meaning payments on dozens of self-insured retentions (SIR) were required before Evanston had any obligation to pay. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the sheriff’s office with the Atlanta appeals panel agreeing, deeming Evanston’s citation of state sovereign-immunity laws as “irrelevant to the coverage issue here.” The opinion continued, “The evidence is undisputed that the sheriff already hit that $500,000 SIR amount for the Parkland incident based on claims expenses alone.”
Condominium Claim Bombshell: Florida always has condo drama going on somewhere, the most recent in Jacksonville. Noted insurance defense attorney Matthew Monson explained the case in a recent LinkedIn post, titled “Bombshell Allegations Made by Condo Association in Florida Against Plaintiff Law Firms, Roofer, Claim Funder, and Public Adjuster,” and which we’ve included below.
I truly wish none of this happened. Just last month in Duval County, Villa Medici Condominium Association filed suit against nearly everyone involved in its hurricane claim, including well-known plaintiff firms, the roofer they recommended, a claim funding company, and a public adjuster. The complaint alleges, among other things:
- Creation of a false date of loss (p. 41)
- Presentation of “artificially and fraudulently inflated” claim values (p. 41)
- A roofing contract priced at more than double other bids, with a 20% cancellation penalty (pp. 75–76)
- Attorneys referring the roofer to a factoring company that purchased the inflated invoices (p. 79)
- The factoring company later suing the condominium owners after coverage was denied (p. 86)
- A resulting $3 million payment demand for work allegedly worth about $821,000 (pp. 87–88)
These allegations, if proven, expose a troubling pattern in post-storm litigation where legal referrals, inflated contracts, and claim funding intertwine to the detriment of property owners and insurers alike. Ethical advocacy requires independence and transparency. The profession’s credibility depends on both.
Attorney Fees Awarded: A Florida appeals court has ruled that an insurance company’s payment of policy proceeds after a policyholder filed suit amounted to a confession of judgment – and entitlement of attorney fees. When John and Joy Chun’s home sustained substantive wind damage, their insurance company, Castle Key Indemnity Company inspected the roof and determined the cost of repair was less than the $1,000 deductible. A public adjuster hired by the Chuns found that the damage was more in the ballpark of $46,730.51, and they were awarded this amount once they filed suit. After the Chuns won their appraisal amount for wind damage in the initial lawsuit, they came back to recover their attorney fees. Their motion was denied, but they appealed and the decision was reversed in Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal. Castle Key claimed that the Chuns “race[d] to the courthouse” rather than make the company aware of the initial disagreement on damage evaluations so things could be resolved. The court disagreed, holding that the insured were entitled to their section 627.428 attorney’s fees citing precedent from Goff v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., wherein “[the insureds’] lawsuit forced State Farm to request an appraisal and to pay significant additional amounts.” Similarly, the Chuns were found to have filed for legitimate reason, and the court held that without them filing suit, Castle Key would’ve taken no further action on the claim. You can read the full opinion here.
LMA Newsletter of 11-17-25
