Background
James R. Stewart, Jr. sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company for breach of contract after Universal allegedly failed to cover all losses from water damage to his home. A jury was selected on April 28, 2025, but Stewart suffered a serious injury while leaving the courthouse that afternoon when his wheelchair flipped, breaking his tibia and ankle. He was scheduled for surgery the next day.
Stewart’s counsel requested a mistrial because Stewart could not attend or testify about the condition of his plumbing and the claimed need to tear out portions of the home. Universal initially did not object and later also moved for a mistrial, explaining that it needed Stewart to present its best defense. The trial court instead proceeded with Stewart’s 2021 deposition, and the jury found that his losses were excluded or not covered under the policy. The court denied his postverdict request for a new trial and entered judgment for Universal.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that, under the case’s unique circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the mistrial motions. Stewart’s unexpected medical emergency prevented him both from attending his own trial and from giving material testimony supporting his case. Proceeding without him denied his right to be present and his due-process opportunity to be heard and testify.
The court acknowledged the trial court’s interest in efficient docket management after a day had been spent selecting the jury. But this was not a request based on convenience or delay, and Universal likewise sought a mistrial, eliminating any claim that restarting the trial would unfairly prejudice it. The court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial.
In a separate concurrence, Judge Labrit concluded that Stewart also should have received a directed verdict on Universal’s neglect defense based on the evidence presented at the first trial. In her view, the 2016 or 2017 plumbing backup was not a “loss” within the policy’s neglect exclusion, and the exclusion addressed failure to save and preserve property at or after a loss—not failure to prevent the later 2019 loss. She cautioned, however, that the evidence on remand may change after Stewart testifies.
Key Takeaways
- A civil litigant’s right to attend trial and present testimony cannot yield merely to docket-efficiency concerns when an unexpected medical emergency prevents attendance.
- Failure to grant a mistrial was reversible error because Stewart was both a party and a material witness whose absence prevented a fair presentation of the case.
- Judge Labrit’s discussion of the policy’s neglect exclusion was a concurrence, not the panel’s holding, and expressly depended on the evidentiary record from the first trial.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Florida trial courts must accommodate a genuine, unforeseen medical emergency when proceeding would deprive a party of the ability to attend and materially participate in trial. Prior investment in jury selection does not outweigh the fundamental requirements of a fair hearing.
The concurrence also offers guidance for insurance disputes involving neglect exclusions: language requiring an insured to save and preserve property “at and after” a loss ordinarily functions as a mitigation provision, not as a basis to deny coverage because the insured allegedly failed to prevent a later loss.