Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 627.707 (2025)
Investigation of sinkhole claims; insurer payment; nonrenewals.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
627.707 Investigation of sinkhole claims; insurer payment; nonrenewals.—Upon receipt of a claim for a sinkhole loss to a covered building, an insurer must meet the following standards in investigating a claim:
(1) The insurer must inspect the policyholder’s premises to determine if there is structural damage that may be the result of sinkhole activity.
(2) If the insurer confirms that structural damage exists but is unable to identify a valid cause of such damage or discovers that such damage is consistent with sinkhole loss, the insurer shall engage a professional engineer or a professional geologist to conduct testing as provided in s. 627.7072 to determine the cause of the loss within a reasonable professional probability and issue a report as provided in s. 627.7073, only if sinkhole loss is covered under the policy. Except as provided in subsections (4) and (6), the fees and costs of the professional engineer or professional geologist shall be paid by the insurer.
(3) Following the initial inspection of the policyholder’s premises, the insurer shall provide written notice to the policyholder disclosing the following information:
(a) What the insurer has determined to be the cause of damage, if the insurer has made such a determination.
(b) A statement of the circumstances under which the insurer is required to engage a professional engineer or a professional geologist to verify or eliminate sinkhole loss and to engage a professional engineer to make recommendations regarding land and building stabilization and foundation repair.
(c) A statement regarding the right of the policyholder to request testing by a professional engineer or a professional geologist, the circumstances under which the policyholder may demand certain testing, and the circumstances under which the policyholder may incur costs associated with testing.
(4)(a) If the insurer determines that there is no sinkhole loss, the insurer may deny the claim.
(b) If coverage for sinkhole loss is available and the insurer denies the claim without performing testing under s. 627.7072, the policyholder may demand testing by the insurer under s. 627.7072.
1. The policyholder’s demand for testing must be communicated to the insurer in writing within 60 days after the policyholder’s receipt of the insurer’s denial of the claim.
2. The policyholder shall pay 50 percent of the actual costs of the analyses and services provided under ss. 627.7072 and 627.7073 or $2,500, whichever is less.
3. The insurer shall reimburse the policyholder for the costs if the insurer’s engineer or geologist provides written certification pursuant to s. 627.7073 that there is sinkhole loss.
(5) If a sinkhole loss is verified, the insurer shall pay to stabilize the land and building and repair the foundation in accordance with the recommendations of the professional engineer retained pursuant to subsection (2), with notice to the policyholder, subject to the coverage and terms of the policy. The insurer shall pay for other repairs to the structure and contents in accordance with the terms of the policy. If a covered building suffers a sinkhole loss or a catastrophic ground cover collapse, the insured must repair such damage or loss in accordance with the insurer’s professional engineer’s recommended repairs. However, if the insurer’s professional engineer determines that the repair cannot be completed within policy limits, the insurer must pay to complete the repairs recommended by the insurer’s professional engineer or tender the policy limits to the policyholder.
(a) The insurer may limit its total claims payment to the actual cash value of the sinkhole loss, which does not include underpinning or grouting or any other repair technique performed below the existing foundation of the building, until the policyholder enters into a contract for the performance of building stabilization or foundation repairs in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the insurer’s report issued pursuant to s. 627.7073.
(b) In order to prevent additional damage to the building or structure, the policyholder must enter into a contract for the performance of building stabilization and foundation repairs within 90 days after the insurance company confirms coverage for the sinkhole loss and notifies the policyholder of such confirmation. This time period is tolled if either party invokes the neutral evaluation process, and begins again 10 days after the conclusion of the neutral evaluation process.
(c) After the policyholder enters into the contract for the performance of building stabilization and foundation repairs, the insurer shall pay the amounts necessary to begin and perform such repairs as the work is performed and the expenses are incurred. The insurer may not require the policyholder to advance payment for such repairs. If repair covered by a personal lines residential property insurance policy has begun and the professional engineer selected or approved by the insurer determines that the repair cannot be completed within the policy limits, the insurer must complete the professional engineer’s recommended repair or tender the policy limits to the policyholder without a reduction for the repair expenses incurred.
(d) The stabilization and all other repairs to the structure and contents must be completed within 12 months after entering into the contract for repairs described in paragraph (b) unless:
1. There is a mutual agreement between the insurer and the policyholder;
2. The claim is involved with the neutral evaluation process;
3. The claim is in litigation; or
4. The claim is under appraisal or mediation.
(e) Upon the insurer’s obtaining the written approval of any lienholder, the insurer may make payment directly to the persons selected by the policyholder to perform the land and building stabilization and foundation repairs. The decision by the insurer to make payment to such persons does not hold the insurer liable for the work performed.
(f) The policyholder may not accept a rebate from any person performing the repairs specified in this section. If a policyholder receives a rebate, coverage is void and the policyholder must refund the amount of the rebate to the insurer. Any person performing the repairs specified in this section who offers a rebate commits insurance fraud punishable as a third degree felony as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this paragraph, the term “rebate” means a remuneration, payment, gift, discount, or transfer of any item of value to the policyholder by or on behalf of a person performing the repairs specified in this section as an incentive or inducement to obtain repairs performed by that person.
(6) If the insurer obtains, pursuant to s. 627.7073, written certification that there is no sinkhole loss or that the cause of the damage was not sinkhole activity, and if the policyholder has submitted the sinkhole claim without good faith grounds for submitting such claim, the policyholder shall reimburse the insurer for 50 percent of the actual costs of the analyses and services provided under ss. 627.7072 and 627.7073; however, a policyholder is not required to reimburse an insurer more than $2,500 with respect to any claim. A policyholder is required to pay reimbursement under this subsection only if the policyholder requested the analysis and services provided under ss. 627.7072 and 627.7073 and the insurer, before ordering the analysis under s. 627.7072, informs the policyholder in writing of the policyholder’s potential liability for reimbursement and gives the policyholder the opportunity to withdraw the claim.
(7) An insurer may not nonrenew any policy of property insurance on the basis of filing of claims for sinkhole loss if the total of such payments does not equal or exceed the policy limits of coverage for the policy in effect on the date of loss, for property damage to the covered building, as set forth on the declarations page, or if the policyholder repaired the structure in accordance with the engineering recommendations made pursuant to subsection (2) upon which any payment or policy proceeds were based. If the insurer pays such limits, it may nonrenew the policy.
(8) The insurer may engage a professional structural engineer to make recommendations as to the repair of the structure.
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-146; s. 4, ch. 93-401; s. 19, ch. 2005-111; s. 26, ch. 2006-12; s. 25, ch. 2011-39; s. 15, ch. 2012-151.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 627.707
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§627.707(5e)FRAUDRENUMBERED SEE REC# 7311
§627.707(5f)FRAUDREPAIR SINKHOLE DAMAGE OFFER REBATE
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases, 2006–2017 · leading case: Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012).
Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). The sunset provision, however, never became effective.”
Warfel v. Universal Ins. Co. of North Am., 36 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “Specifically, section 627.707, Florida Statutes (2005), was amended to revise the standards for investigating sinkhole claims.”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “The amounts necessary to repair subsurface damages are treated differently than amounts required for cosmetic repairs under the provi *732 sions of policies such as the one at issue in this case and as authorized under section § 627.707(5), Florida Statutes (2010). Accordingly,…”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 190 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (2008). I write to explain my reading of this insurance policy and -7- the shifting burdens of proof that it creates.”
Kathy Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co., 200 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). “After this second adverse report, Omega finally advised Johnson that it would abide by the WRS evaluation report and provide payment for the damages pursuant to section 627.707(5)(b). Johnson was additionally advised that payment for the damages to her property was conditioned…”
Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Because the insurance policy contained a loss settlement provision tracking the language of section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), Tower Hill had the authority to withhold payment for subsurface repairs until McKee entered into a contract for those repairs.”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
LoBello v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “In Count II, the LoBellos alleged a second claim for breach of contract based on State Farm’s failure to conduct testing for sinkhole activity in accordance with section 627.707, Florida Statutes (2007).”
Barton v. Capitol Preferred Ins. Co., 208 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). “Thereafter, by letter dated October 7, 2011, the Bartons, through their attorney, submitted a claim and request for sinkhole testing to Capitol, pursuant to section 627.707, Florida Statutes (2011).”
Geico Indem. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 79 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “The insureds’ policies in Nichols required State Farm to submit payment to the insureds within sixty days of the filing of an appraisal award and State Farm’s receipt of proof of loss, while section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), a permissive statute that was not…”
Herrera v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co., 161 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “1 The third motion claimed that section 627.707 allowed Tower Hill to deny the claim based on Madrid’s report.”
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 134 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “See § 627.707(5)(a) & (c), Fla. Stat. (2013).”
— 627.707(1) — 3 cases
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 190 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (2008). I write to explain my reading of this insurance policy and -7- the shifting burdens of proof that it creates.”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
Omega Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 207 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
— 627.707(11) — 1 case
Morejon v. Am. Sec. Ins., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Fla. 2011).
— 627.707(2) — 7 cases
Warfel v. Universal Ins. Co. of North Am., 36 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “Specifically, section 627.707, Florida Statutes (2005), was amended to revise the standards for investigating sinkhole claims.”
Universal Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). The sunset provision, however, never became effective.”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Herrera v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co., 161 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “1 The third motion claimed that section 627.707 allowed Tower Hill to deny the claim based on Madrid’s report.”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 190 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (2008). I write to explain my reading of this insurance policy and -7- the shifting burdens of proof that it creates.”
— 627.707(2)(a) — 1 case
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
— 627.707(3) — 1 case
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
— 627.707(4) — 1 case
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 190 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (2008). I write to explain my reading of this insurance policy and -7- the shifting burdens of proof that it creates.”
— 627.707(5) — 3 cases
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “The amounts necessary to repair subsurface damages are treated differently than amounts required for cosmetic repairs under the provi *732 sions of policies such as the one at issue in this case and as authorized under section § 627.707(5), Florida Statutes (2010). Accordingly,…”
Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co., 164 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Ringelman v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 228 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
— 627.707(5)(a) — 4 cases
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
Gonzalez v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
Herrera v. Tower Hill Preferred Ins. Co., 161 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “1 The third motion claimed that section 627.707 allowed Tower Hill to deny the claim based on Madrid’s report.”
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 134 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “See § 627.707(5)(a) & (c), Fla. Stat. (2013).”
— 627.707(5)(b) — 11 cases
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “The amounts necessary to repair subsurface damages are treated differently than amounts required for cosmetic repairs under the provi *732 sions of policies such as the one at issue in this case and as authorized under section § 627.707(5), Florida Statutes (2010). Accordingly,…”
Kathy Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co., 200 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). “After this second adverse report, Omega finally advised Johnson that it would abide by the WRS evaluation report and provide payment for the damages pursuant to section 627.707(5)(b). Johnson was additionally advised that payment for the damages to her property was conditioned…”
Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Because the insurance policy contained a loss settlement provision tracking the language of section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), Tower Hill had the authority to withhold payment for subsurface repairs until McKee entered into a contract for those repairs.”
Geico Indem. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 79 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “The insureds’ policies in Nichols required State Farm to submit payment to the insureds within sixty days of the filing of an appraisal award and State Farm’s receipt of proof of loss, while section 627.707(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), a permissive statute that was not…”
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Nunez, 194 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See §§ 627.707-.7074, Fla. Stat. (2010). After the insured makes a claim, the insurer must inspect the insured’s property to determine whether there is physical damage to the structure that may have resulted from sinkhole activity.”
— 627.707(7) — 1 case
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 190 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See § 627.707, Fla. Stat. (2008). I write to explain my reading of this insurance policy and -7- the shifting burdens of proof that it creates.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.