Case Law Update: Stewart v. Universal Property & Casualty — New Trial Ordered, and a Concurrence Narrows the Neglect Exclusion

On September 25, 2026, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal decided Stewart v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2D2025-1914 — homeowner James R. Stewart, Jr.'s appeal from a judgment for his insurer after a jury trial on his breach-of-contract claim in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County (Judge Amy Williams). The panel reversed and remanded for a new trial: the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a mistrial after Mr. Stewart was seriously injured leaving the courthouse and could not attend the rest of his own trial. A separate concurrence by Judge Labrit reached an issue the majority did not — whether Universal's neglect exclusion can rest on an insured's conduct before the claimed loss.

What Happened at Trial

Universal insured Mr. Stewart's home, which sustained water damage in 2019. Per the concurrence, the cast iron plumbing failed, his “toilets and showers overflowed, and water and sewage covered his floors,” and Universal partially denied the claim. He sued for the cost to tear out and replace the parts of the home needed to reach it.

A jury was selected April 28, 2025. The next morning his counsel reported that his client had been hurt leaving the courthouse: “His wheelchair apparently went flying . . . down the parking lot, hit the parking bumper, flipped, breaking his tibia and ankle.” Surgery was set for that day; counsel described an elderly client who had a stroke the prior year and faced weeks of “significant pain meds.”

Both sides asked for a mistrial. His counsel said he needed Mr. Stewart to testify to the plumbing's condition from the time he bought the house through the event, and that Mr. Stewart “was the only person who could present evidence ‘regarding [the] necessity for tear out’ in 2019.” Universal would not stipulate and moved for a mistrial itself, saying it too needed him present “in order to be able to put on the best version of [the defense's] case.” Neither side wanted to rely on his 2021 deposition, which predated 2024 repairs. The trial court denied both motions and had that deposition read anyway. The jury found his losses “excluded or not covered under the specific terms of the insurance policy.”

Why the Second District Reversed

Mistrials are discretionary and should not be granted “unless an absolute legal necessity to do so exists.” Dorsey v. Reddy, 931 So. 2d 259, 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quoting Gonzalez v. Largen, 790 So. 2d 497, 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Against that, the court set a party's right to be present — “virtually sacrosanct” per Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So. 2d 886, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) — and Solonina v. Artglass International, LLC, 256 So. 3d 971, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)), for the rule that denying a party the opportunity to be heard and to testify is fundamental error.

The holding: the trial court “abused its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial made after Mr. Stewart's medical emergency rendered him unable to attend his trial. Not only was he unable to attend his trial as a party, he was unable to offer testimony in support of his case-in-chief.” Two facts mattered: the absence was “beyond his control and the result of a medical incident,” and Universal had sought a mistrial too, so it “would not have been prejudiced.” The panel credited the trial court's concern with “managing its docket efficiently and conserving judicial resources,” noting in a footnote the supreme court's directive that trial courts strictly manage cases and timely move them to resolution — but this was no continuance sought “for convenience or even dilatory reasons.” Judge Morris wrote for the court, joined by Judge Khouzam.

The Concurrence on the Neglect Exclusion

What follows is one judge's view, not the court's holding — but Judge Labrit says “Florida law is currently silent” on the question.

Universal pled an exclusion quoted in the concurrence: “Neglect means neglect of an ‘insured’ to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss.” The evidence behind the defense was a “plumbing problem” and “sewage backup” in 2016 or 2017, after which Mr. Stewart replaced his toilets — with, per the concurrence, no evidence it caused damage and none that he claimed it. Universal argued that backup was itself “a loss,” making it a jury question whether he should have done more. Judge Labrit would have directed a verdict against the defense:

• “Loss” is not any unfortunate event. The policy does not define it, and the Florida Supreme Court has said “‘[l]oss’ in the insurance context ‘refers to damage resulting from a covered event.’” Am. Coastal Ins. v. San Marco Villas Condo. Ass'n, 379 So. 3d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 2024) (quoting BonBeck Parker, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 14 F.4th 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2021)). On this record the 2016/2017 backup “was not ‘a loss’ as the neglect exclusion contemplates.”
• The carrier's reading nears absurdity. Under it, “the 2019 loss is excluded because Mr. Stewart neglected to prevent the 2019 loss before it occurred” — which “borders on absurd” and would leave “the distinction between pre- and post-loss neglect . . . meaningless,” a point the concurrence draws from Chicago Import, Inc. v. American States Insurance, No. 09 CV 2885, 2015 WL 2193138, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2015). It would also render superfluous the policy's separate maintenance provision, under which Universal “do[es] not insure for loss” caused by “[f]aulty, inadequate[,] or defective . . . maintenance” — the provision that does address pre-loss conduct. See Hurst v. Bell, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1542 (Fla. 2d DCA July 29, 2026).
• The clause asks an insured to “save and preserve,” not to upgrade. The concurrence points to Jamison v. Depositors Insurance, No. 14-CV-3009, 2016 WL 3541391, at *10 (D. Neb. May 23, 2016), which explains that “the ‘neglect’ exclusion is a mitigation provision” requiring an insured to preserve or save property during or after a loss; not replacing a plumbing system is “far different from saving and preserving the status quo.”

What This Means If You Have a Florida Property Insurance Claim

The neglect analysis above is a single-judge concurrence and settles nothing. The policy wording it parses, however, is standard, and these points follow from that wording rather than from any holding:

• The clause is written around post-loss conduct. When a carrier invokes neglect, ask which event it calls “a loss,” whether that event was covered, and whether a claim was ever made for it.
• Neglect and maintenance are different provisions. Faulty or inadequate maintenance has its own clause directed at pre-loss conduct; a maintenance argument does not automatically become a neglect argument.
• Document what you did when the water started. Shutting off water, drying, tarping, hiring mitigation, keeping invoices and photos — that is what a neglect defense is measured against.
• Prior claim history gets used. A years-earlier backup, known only from a deposition, became a trial defense here. Expect earlier water events to surface.

For how a first-party property claim moves from reporting through denial and suit, see our Florida property insurance claim guide. If a claim has been denied or underpaid, our team offers a free case evaluation.

What the Ruling Does Not Decide

The court did not decide whether the 2019 water loss is covered, what it is worth, or whether Universal handled the claim properly. The coverage questions start over at the new trial, and the concurrence notes “the evidence on remand may and likely will change.” The opinion is also “subject to revision prior to official publication.”

Published September 27, 2026, based on the opinion in Stewart v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2D2025-1914 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 25, 2026). Court decisions can be revised or reviewed, and how one applies depends on the facts of a particular claim. This is general information about a court ruling, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it.