Case Corner – Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Francy St. Fleur & Yvrose Hilaire

June 1, 2026
Case Corner, Insurance

Jurisdiction: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 4D2024-1378
Lower Tribunal Case No.: CACE 20-21274
Date: December 10, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Judge John Bowman

Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. St. Fleur & Hilaire

This case arises from a homeowners insurance coverage dispute over a water damage claim Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) denied based on an existing damage exclusion in the policy. The homeowners claimed the loss was covered; Universal claimed the damage predated the policy and should be excluded.

At trial, two critical rulings set the stage for reversal:

The trial court denied Universal’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who:
- Admitted he would review the insurer’s evidence more critically than the homeowners’; and
- Explicitly framed the case as “David vs. Goliath,” saying “David has to have a little bit of an advantage,” and
- Added that, from his experience, insurance companies’ “goal is clearly not to pay.”
The trial court excluded pre-policy photographs of the home (from a 2019 inspection) that Universal used to argue the damage predated the 2020 policy even though the homeowner authenticated the photos on the stand.

Universal lost at trial and appealed. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding:

The denial of the for-cause juror challenge was error and not harmless, because it forced Universal to waste a peremptory strike and sit another problematic juror.
The exclusion of properly authenticated photographic evidence was an abuse of discretion and also not harmless, especially given the jury’s later question asking whether any photographs were in evidence.

For Florida homeowners, this case is a reminder that jury selection and evidence rulings can decide whether a favorable verdict actually survives appeal. It fits into the broader landscape of Florida property insurance battles discussed in:

Background

The homeowners filed a declaratory judgment action after Universal denied their claim for water damage, relying on the policy’s existing damage exclusion. Universal’s position was that:

The claimed damage preexisted the 2020 policy,
The condition was visible and documented in 2019 inspection photos from when the homeowners purchased the property, and
Therefore, the loss fell outside the policy’s covered period.

The case went to a jury trial.

Voir Dire – “David vs. Goliath”

During jury selection, Prospective Juror #19:

Raised his hand when asked if he would view insurer evidence more critically than the homeowners’;
Compared the case to “David and Goliath”, expressly framing the homeowners as David and the insurer as Goliath;
Stated that, in his experience in the medical field, an insurance company’s “goal is clearly not to pay.”

Universal moved to strike Juror #19 for cause. The trial court denied the motion, forcing Universal to use one of its limited peremptory strikes to remove him.

Universal also moved to strike Prospective Juror #4 for cause based on:

Her prior “grueling” insurance claim experience involving lawyers and adjusters, and
Responses that raised concern about impartiality in a hypothetical involving being forced to stay on a turbulent flight with a pilot who had prior issues.

The trial court denied that for-cause challenge as well. Because Universal had already used a peremptory strike on Juror #19, it had no peremptories left to strike Juror #4, requested an additional peremptory, and was denied. Juror #4 sat on the jury that ultimately ruled against Universal.

Excluded Photographs

At trial, Universal tried to introduce 2019 home inspection photographs to show that the claimed damage existed before the policy’s inception. The homeowner:

Admitted the photos were of his property;
Confirmed they were taken during his 2019 purchase inspection; and
Testified they fairly and accurately represented the condition of the property when he first saw it.

Despite this, the trial court sustained a “lack of predicate” objection and excluded the photographs.

The jury returned a verdict for the homeowners, and the trial court entered judgment in their favor. Universal appealed, arguing both the juror ruling and the evidentiary ruling deprived it of a fair trial.

Legal Analysis

I. For-Cause Challenge and Juror Bias

Under Florida law, a for cause challenge must be granted if there is any reasonable doubt as to a prospective juror’s impartiality. A juror is not impartial if one side must overcome a preconceived opinion to prevail. Close calls are supposed to be resolved in favor of excusing the juror.

The Fourth DCA relied on principles from cases like:

Smith v. State – reasonable doubt as to impartiality requires excusal;
Sydleman v. Benson – close cases should be resolved by striking the juror;
Weinstein Design Group and Jaffe – strong feelings toward one side can require removal.

Here, the appellate court focused on the unequivocal bias of Juror #19:

He admitted he would scrutinize the insurer’s evidence more harshly than the homeowners’;
He expressly adopted a David vs. Goliath frame, giving an advantage to the homeowner side;
He said from his professional experience that insurers’ “goal is clearly not to pay.”

That is not a subtle bias it is a stated predisposition against one party type, before any evidence is heard.

Because the trial court wrongly refused to excuse Juror #19 for cause, Universal:

Was forced to use a peremptory strike to remove him;
Then lacked a peremptory strike to remove Juror #4, whom it also reasonably viewed as biased;
Was denied its request for an additional peremptory challenge, leaving Juror #4 seated.

Under Florida law, when a party:

Properly preserves a for-cause challenge,
Is forced to exhaust peremptories because of the error,
And is denied additional peremptories,

a new trial is warranted if the error is not harmless.

Harmless Error Analysis

The court applied Florida’s harmless error standard:

Reversal is required if there is a reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict,
And the beneficiary of the error (here, the homeowners) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute.

The homeowners argued that the error was harmless because Universal allegedly failed to prove preexisting damage, so any reasonable jury would have ruled for them anyway.

The Fourth DCA rejected that view:

The jury had to evaluate coverage, burdens of proof, and defenses all areas where reasonable jurors could differ;
The composition of the jury matters, especially when at least one seated juror (Juror #4) was someone the insurer would have struck but for the earlier error;
There was a reasonable possibility that a properly selected jury might have viewed the claim or defenses differently.

Result: The denial of the for-cause challenge was not harmless, and a new trial was required on that basis alone.

II. Exclusion of Properly Authenticated Photographs

The court also addressed the photographic evidence issue, providing a clean lesson on authentication under section 90.901, Florida Statutes.

To authenticate a photograph under the “pictorial testimony” method, a sponsoring witness with personal knowledge simply needs to say the image fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to show.

Here, the homeowner did exactly that:

Yes, these are my property;
Yes, they depict the condition when I first saw it in 2019;
Yes, they fairly and accurately represent that condition.

Florida cases recognize that authentication is a “low threshold” and is often satisfied by a one sentence predicate. Once authenticated, disputes go to weight and relevance, not admissibility.

The Fourth DCA held:

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the photos for lack of predicate;
The homeowners’ harmless error argument (that the damage was allegedly repaired before closing) missed the point — that is a merits question, not an authentication question;
The error was not harmless, especially because the jury specifically asked during deliberations whether there were any photographs in evidence to review.

That question showed the jurors wanted visual evidence — and were deprived of key images that supported the insurer’s theory. That alone made it reasonably possible the error contributed to the verdict.

Result: The evidentiary error provided an additional, independent ground to reverse and remand for a new trial.

What This Means for Florida Homeowners

Even though the insurer won this appeal, the case carries an important practical message for homeowners:

Verdicts can be lost on appeal when jury selection and evidentiary rulings are mishandled — even in cases where the homeowner initially wins.
Insurers will look for procedural and evidentiary errors as ammunition to overturn jury verdicts.
Proper handling of voir dire, bias challenges, and documentary evidence is just as important as proving damage and coverage.

For policyholders, this reinforces why it matters to work with counsel who not only understands coverage, exclusions, and bad faith tactics, but also the trial and appellate nuances that insurers use to undo hard-fought victories themes explored further in:

Today’s Insight

“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.”

— Eleanor Roosevelt

Universal-Property-v-St-Fleur-Hilaire-Jury-Selection-Error-Photograph-Exclusion.pdf Download