State v. Barnett, 262 So. 3d 750

DCF investigated domestic-violence complaints about Patrick Dell in Dec. 2009, then closed the file after interviews. Nine months later Patrick returned and fatally shot four children and injured a fifth; the parents sued DCF for negligent investigation/supervision.
Plaintiffs are personal representatives of the deceased children's estates and the injured child's guardian; they sought damages for DCF’s alleged negligence.
DFS intervened and sought a declaratory judgment on the application of Florida’s sovereign-immunity cap, section 768.28(5) (2010): $100,000 per person and $200,000 for claims arising out of the same "incident or occurrence."
The trial court held each death/injury was a separate "incident or occurrence," allowing each claim to access the per-person cap; DFS appealed.
The district court reviewed statutory construction de novo and emphasized that sovereign-immunity waivers must be strictly and unambiguously construed against waiver.
The court concluded the Department’s single negligent investigation was one incident/occurrence; the $200,000 aggregate cap applies to all claims arising from that single negligent course of conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether each murder/injury is a separate "incident or occurrence" under §768.28(5)	Each killing/shooting is a distinct incident so each claim gets its own per-person cap	The injuries arose from one negligent investigation by DCF, so they stem from a single incident/occurrence limited to $200,000 total	The court held all claims arose from one incident of negligence; the $200,000 aggregate cap applies
Whether res judicata analysis controls the "incident" question	Multiple claimants mean separate claims/occurrences	Res judicata is inapplicable to multiple plaintiffs asserting one negligent act	Court rejected applying res judicata to convert multiple plaintiffs into separate incidents
Whether insurance-policy "occurrence" cases (e.g., Koikos) guide statutory interpretation	Trial court relied on analogous "occurrence" reasoning	Koikos is inapplicable because it interprets insurance policy language and favors insureds; sovereign-immunity waivers require strict construction	Court held Koikos inapplicable and refused to import insurance-law liberal construction
Whether ambiguous waiver should be construed to favor plaintiffs	Plaintiffs urged a liberal reading to maximize recovery	Statutory waiver must be clear and unequivocal; ambiguities resolve against waiver and in favor of protecting the public treasury	Court construed statute strictly against expansive waiver and limited recovery by the aggregate cap

Spangler v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 106 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1958) (sovereign immunity waiver must be clear and is strictly construed)
Cauley v. City of Jacksonville, 403 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1981) (legislature may waive immunity; historical background on waiver)
Maggio v. Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp't Sec., 899 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2005) (standard of review for statutory construction)
Rumbough v. City of Tampa, 403 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (continuing nuisance treated as single occurrence exhausting aggregate cap)
Orange County v. Gipson, 539 So.2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (multiple deaths from same hazardous condition treated as one incident)
City of Miami v. Valdez, 847 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (single tortious act causing multiple injuries subject to aggregate cap)
State Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. T.R. ex rel. Shapiro, 847 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (single negligent supervision claim against DCF spanning years treated as single claim per child)
Zamora v. Florida Atlantic Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 969 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (distinct claims by same plaintiff may be separate incidents for res judicata analysis)
Koikos v. Travelers Ins. Co., 849 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2003) (insurance-policy "occurrence" analysis; construed liberally for insureds)
State ex rel. Div. of Admin. v. Oliff, 350 So.2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (reiterating strict construction of sovereign-immunity waivers)