Underwriters who write school business are used to claims over playground injuries, abuse allegations and employment disputes. Fewer have priced in a parent who hires a lawyer over a C.
That exposure appears to be growing. The Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 9 that families in Silicon Valley and other affluent areas are increasingly bringing lawyers into disagreements over grades and teacher assessments. Palo Alto Unified School District has been sued twice in the past year.
In the first case, a tech executive sued the district in federal court after AI-detection software flagged his son’s tenth-grade English essay as largely machine-written. The boy was allowed to redo the work, but he received a D, which pulled his final grade down to a C. The family argued that detection tools treat students who aren’t native English speakers unfairly. The father dropped the suit in September, and the district said nothing was paid to settle it.
The second case is still open. A mother wants a court to order a new hearing after the district’s board refused to remove comments on her third-grader’s report card about how he handles conflict with classmates. The comments followed a recess dispute. She says the board hearing was unfair because her lawyer lost the video connection partway through.
Read next: Insurance gap shields Maryland school board from pre-1971 abuse claims
Disputes like these usually fall under a district’s educators legal liability (ELL) policy, which some carriers call school board legal liability. The coverage blends features of directors and officers and errors and omissions insurance. Brokers who place it note that a claim can be expensive to defend even when it has no merit.
The open Palo Alto case is a useful test for brokers. The parent is asking for a new hearing, not money. Whether a district’s policy would pay to defend that kind of action depends on how the form defines a claim. Brokers may want to check that with their education clients before renewal.
Most grade disputes never reach a courtroom, but the pressure behind them is widespread. Education Week’s 2024 State of Teaching survey polled a nationally representative sample of 1,500 teachers. About four in 10 said parents and students had pushed them to change grades in the previous year, compared with 20% who reported pressure from district leaders.
Income makes a large difference. In schools where fewer than 25% of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, more than half of teachers reported some or a lot of parental pressure. In schools where more than 75% qualify, about a third did. The pressure also builds as students get older. Three-quarters of elementary teachers said they got little or no pressure from parents, against 54% of high school teachers.
Some teachers give in. A December 2024 EdWeek Research Center survey found 44% of educators had changed a grade after issuing it at least once over two years.
Read next: Georgia court throws out $345 million award against Darlington School’s insurers
The federal suit in Palo Alto points to a risk that is likely to come up more often: schools disciplining students on the strength of an AI-detection score. Researchers have questioned how reliable these tools are. In a Stanford study, seven detectors performed almost perfectly on essays by U.S.-born eighth-graders. They labeled about 61% of TOEFL essays written by non-native speakers as AI-generated, and at least one detector flagged 97% of those essays. The authors’ published paper cautions against relying on the tools in classrooms.
Meanwhile, carriers are writing AI out of their forms. ISO’s generative AI exclusion is already attached to thousands of CGL policies. The endorsement became available in January, and Berkley has added an absolute AI exclusion to its D&O, E&O and fiduciary products. The employment market has split over AI exclusions, with some carriers attaching absolute exclusions to management liability packages while most policies remain silent on AI.
That reporting didn’t cover school ELL forms specifically. Brokers with education clients should find out whether any AI wording on those forms could be read to exclude a suit over a cheating finding that relied on detection software.
Read next: AI exclusions are spreading through commercial policies, brokers warn clients to check cover
New sources of litigation are reaching districts at an awkward time. Amwins’ 2026 public entity market report said casualty lines are struggling with legal system abuse, rising loss costs and legislative change, even though property pricing has softened. The broker also found underwriters still putting weight on credible loss history and jurisdiction when they assess public entity accounts. A run of small ELL defense files is the kind of thing that shows up in that history.
Clear grading rules help. EdWeek reported that districts are increasingly grading academic performance separately from behavior, an approach experts say makes grades more consistent and harder to pressure. Susan Brookhart, a professor emerita at Duquesne University who studies grading, told the publication that grades built this way are “more defensible.”
For risk managers, that suggests three steps: a written appeal process that parents can see, documentation of how each grade was reached, and a policy that keeps an AI-detection score from being the only evidence of cheating. Palo Alto’s spokeswoman told the Journal that the district has a formal process for contesting grades and will follow it in court.
