An elderly Florida homeowner suing his insurer over sewage damage broke his leg when his wheelchair flipped outside the courthouse, and the trial went ahead without him; an appeals court has now ordered a new trial

The appeals court overturned the jury’s verdict, reopening the homeowner’s insurance coverage dispute for a new trial.

A trip to the court house that was expected to bring an elderly Florida homeowner closer to resolving a long running insurance dispute ended in a medical emergency. The homeowner broke his leg and had to have surgery after his wheelchair tipped over in the courthouse parking lot, and so he couldn’t participate in his own trial. He did not attend, but the trial went ahead and he was found against by the jury. But a Florida appeals court has now overturned that verdict, ordering a new trial and raising important questions about a policy exclusion used by property insurers.

Verdict turns around in wheelchair accident

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal overturned the jury’s verdict on September 25, finding that the trial court erred in allowing the case to proceed after the homeowner was seriously injured, Insurance Business reported.The accident happened outside the courthouse when his wheelchair rolled across the parking lot, hit the bumper of a car and tipped over. The fall broke his tibia and ankle and he was unable to attend the proceedings or testify.The homeowner was an elderly fellow who had had a stroke the prior year. He was also preparing for surgery after the accident. His lawyer told the court of the emergency the morning after jury selection began April 28, 2025, in Pinellas County.The homeowner’s attorney and Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company requested a mistrial. But the judge denied the requests and let the case proceed without the homeowner.The appeals court later ruled that the denial of his right to be present at and participate in his own trial was a fundamental error. It pointed out the significance of a party’s right to participate in proceedings and sent the matter back for a new trial.

Dispute over insurance dates back to 2019

The heart of the dispute involves water and sewage damage from a 2019 plumbing failure at the homeowner’s property.The property’s cast-iron plumbing system failed, causing sewage and water to spread across the floors, Insurance Business reported. The homeowner subsequently filed a claim with her insurer to pay for the removal and replacement of sections of the house so that the damaged pipes could be accessed and repaired.Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company denied part of the claim, and the homeowner sued.In the first trial, the jury ultimately found that the claimed losses were excluded under the insurance policy. The appeals court has now overturned that decision, meaning the coverage dispute will have to be re-considered.

Neglect exclusion throws up wider insurance issues

In addition to the procedural issue, the case has also drawn attention to how insurers understand policy exclusions dealing with the upkeep of property.A concurring opinion questioned Universal’s reliance on a neglect exclusion, according to Insurance Business. The provision requires that the policyholder take reasonable steps to protect and preserve his property at and after a loss.The insurer argued that there was a prior loss in the form of a plumbing backup in 2016 or 2017. Universal said the exclusion applied because the homeowner had only replaced toilets, not made more extensive plumbing repairs.But the concurring judge challenged this interpretation, saying the provision relates to acts committed during or following a loss, not failures before it.The opinion also noted concern that accepting the insurer’s view could effectively force homeowners to replace entire plumbing systems after relatively minor incidents in an effort to protect their future coverage.

What the ruling means for insurers

The appeals court ordered a new trial, but the basic coverage dispute is still unresolved. The view may be subject to change prior to formal release.If the logic behind the negligence exclusion stands, the decision could affect how Florida property insurers consider past maintenance problems in deciding whether to pay claims for subsequent damage.Images Courtesy: istock