← Case library
FL Supreme CourtSeptember 24, 2020Affirmed⭐ Notable

Guttenberg v. School Board of Broward County

Case No. SC19-487

In litigation arising from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the Florida Supreme Court accepted a certified pass-through appeal and affirmed a declaratory summary judgment for the School Board holding that the mass shooting constitutes a single 'incident or occurrence' under section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes. All claims arising from the shooting are therefore subject to a single aggregate sovereign immunity cap ($200,000/$300,000 under the applicable 2018 version), rather than separate caps per victim.

Key facts

  • Guttenberg and other victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting brought tort claims against the School Board of Broward County seeking damages for injuries and deaths caused by the shooting.
  • The circuit court granted the School Board's motion for declaratory summary judgment, holding that the mass shooting constitutes a single 'incident or occurrence' under section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes, subjecting all claims to a single aggregate sovereign immunity cap of $300,000 rather than separate caps per victim.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This companion to Barnett confirms that multiple claimants injured in a single mass-casualty event share one $300,000 aggregate sovereign immunity cap, drastically limiting recovery against governmental defendants… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.