INSURANCE: SURPRISE! ASSOCIATION’S POLICY EXCLUDED
COVERAGE FOR SHOOTING

What happens when someone is injured on association property? If serious, then you can bet that a lawsuit against the association will follow.

This circumstance invariably leads to the question: Must your insurer defend a lawsuit filed against the association? The answer likely depends on the nitty-gritty of the insurance policy’s exact wording, and in particular what claims the policy excludes from coverage.

Recently, a Florida appellate court ruled that an insurer did not have a duty to defend a Florida homeowners’ association sued for allegedly causing a death by gunshot. Why? The policy specifically excluded coverage for physical abuse. The facts in Catalina West Homeowners Association, Inc. v. First Community Insurance Company, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D 1318 (Fla. 3^rd DCA, June 18, 2025) indicated that Daniel Macko was shot by unknown assailants at his home within Catalina West and died from his injuries.

Mr. Macko’s estate sued the Association alleging negligent maintenance and security. The Association’s insurer initially defended the Association, issuing a “reservation of rights” which is a letter that usually states a claim will be defended, but that the insurer may change its mind and not defend. The insurer then filed its own lawsuit against the Association seeking the court to issue a declaration that the insurer did not have a duty to defend the Association. In this second lawsuit, the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer.

The Florida appellate court agreed with the decision of the trial court. The court looked at the plain meaning of the words in the policy in determining that the insurer did not have an obligation to defend the Association. The policy contained a “Physical and Sexual Abuse Exclusion” which stated that the policy did not apply to “bodily injury” arising out of or connected to actual physical abuse.

The court noted that the dictionary definition of the word “physical” means “[o]f, relating to, or involving someone’s body as opposed to mind” or “[o]f, relating to, or involving rough or violent contact.”  Finding the words “physical abuse” not ambiguous, the court stated that the policy’s exclusion precluded coverage for an ambush and fatal shooting. “The assailant’s cruel and violent actions inflicted physical injury to Macko,” the court explained. “The policy is unambiguous. It excludes ‘physical abuse,’ which is where someone actually attempts, or threatens cruel and violent treatment to another person’s body resulting in physical injury. An ambush and shooting squarely qualify.”

As a result of this decision, the Association is left having to pay not only its legal fees in defending the lawsuit, but if it loses the lawsuit, the Association could be facing a big judgment.

The lesson to be taken from this case is to know what your insurance policies cover and what they exclude. You do not want to be left with a surprise when the unexpected happens.