Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ing to the sinkhole claim process with regard to database information, testing standards, and reporting requirements. See id. The Legislature amended sections 627.706 and 627.707, Florida Statutes (2005), and enacted sections 627.7065, 627.7072, and 627.7073, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...surance Contracts.” Section 627.707(2) requires insurance companies, upon receipt of a claim for sinkhole damage, to hire a professional engineer or a professional geologist to conduct testing to determine the cause of the loss and issue a report. Section 627.7073 governs those sinkhole reports, and subsection (l)(c) of that section provides: The respective findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer and professional geologist as to the verification or elimination of a sinkhole loss and *50 the findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer as to land and building stabilization and foundation repair shall be presumed correct. § 627.7073(l)(c), Fla....

...The trial court denied Universal’s motions with regard to sections 627.706 and 627.707 because it found that those amendments were substantive and did not apply retroactively. See id. at 137 n. 2. However, the trial court granted Universal’s motion to apply sections 627.7065, 627.7072, and 627.7073 retroactively, reasoning that the statutes were procedural. See id. at 137 n. 2. 1 Universal also moved to apply section 90.304, Florida Statutes (2007), and requested that the jury be instructed that the presumption of correctness as articulated in 627.7073(l)(c) was a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof....

...The experts for Warfel concluded that a sinkhole, at least in part, caused the damage to Warfel’s home. See id. The experts for Universal, each affiliated with SD II, concluded that sinkhole activity did not damage the home. See id. Throughout the trial, Warfel repeatedly asserted that the presumption created in section 627.7073(l)(c) was a “vanishing” or “bursting bubble” presumption governed by section 90.303, Florida Statutes (2005), whereas Universal contended that the presumption in that statute should be governed by section 90.304 because it implements public policy relating to a sinkhole insurance crisis....

...ed loss is not covered.” Id. (citing Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So.2d 1386, 1388-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)). Finally, the court noted that the Legislature “knows how to create burden-shifting presumptions under section 90.304,” but did not do so in section 627.7073(l)(c)....

...in this case and gave the jury an instruction improperly shifting the burden of proof, a new trial is required.” Id. at 140. Further, the court certified the following question to this Court as one of great public importance: DOES THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 627.7073(1)(C) CREATE A PRESUMPTION AFFECTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER SECTION 90.304 OR DOES THE LANGUAGE CREATE A PRESUMPTION AFFECTING THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 90.303? Id. This review followed. BACKGROUND The central question here is whether the burden shifting presumption articulated in section 90.304 of the Florida Evidence Code applies to the presumption provided in section 627.7073(l)(c)....

...ined unchanged until 2005. In 2005, the Legislature significantly restructured the sinkhole claim process. Chapter 2005-111, Laws of Florida, amended sections 627.706 and 627.707, Florida Statutes (2005), and enacted sections 627.7065, 627.7072, and 627.7073, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Chapter 2005-111 basically reformed the claim process and the requirements for the investigation and reporting of claims for sinkhole damage that an insurer was required to satisfy before denying a claim of loss. Section 627.707, Florida Statutes, was amended, in part, to comply with the newly enacted sections 627.7072 and 627.7073....

...ations regarding necessary building stabilization, and foundation repair. (2) Testing by a professional geologist shall be conducted in compliance with the Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 57 (2005). Ch.2005-111, § 20, Laws of Fla. Section 627.7073, the statute at the heart of this case, was enacted to govern the reports required during the claim process stemming from the tests required pursuant to section 627.7072....

...findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer as to land and building stabilization and foundation repair shall be presumed correct. Ch.2005-111, § 21, Laws of Fla. The presumption created during the claim process which is articulated in section 627.7073(l)(c) is the presumption in question in this ease....

...and in studying property claims activities in the insurance industry. Ch.2005-111, § 18, Laws of Fla. ANALYSIS The question of whether the presumption articulated in section 90.304 of the Florida Evidence Code applies to the presumption created in section 627.7073(1)(c) of the claims process statute involves the application of a provision of the Florida Evidence Code and is a pure question of law that is reviewed de novo....

...ance companies to follow when encountering specific types of claims, in this case claims involving sinkhole damage. The application of a specific provision within that scheme to the evidentiary context is both misguided and inappropriate. Nothing in section 627.7073, the statute in question here, justifies application of that statute to the litigation context. That section governs the claims process and the sinkhole reports that must be obtained by insurers and filed by the professional engineer or geologist employed by the insurer during the claim adjustment process to test for sinkhole damage. Section 627.7073(2), which immediately follows section 627.7073(l)(c), provides: Any insurer that has paid a claim for a sinkhole loss shall file a copy of the report and certification, prepared pursuant to subsection (1), with the county property appraiser, who shall record the report and certification with the parcel number....

...h this section. The seller of real property upon which a sinkhole claim has been made shall disclose to the buyer of such property that a claim has been paid and whether or not the full amount of the proceeds were used to repair the sinkhole damage. § 627.7073(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The only mention of a “cause of action” in section 627.7073 is in the context of what does not constitute a cause of action. See § 627.7073(2)....

...ogist from liability for title defects and the insurance companies from claims of improper denials of claims. Accordingly, because the sinkhole statutes do not apply to the litigation context, the trial court’s application of section *58 90.304 to section 627.7073(l)(c) and the treatment of this statute as evidentiary in nature in this case was incorrect....

...On this basis alone, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the decision we reach here today. The presumption applies to the initial claim process and investigation that insurance companies are required to follow in accepting or denying claims. Plain Language of Section 627.7073(1) (c) Even if this Court were to hold that section 627.7073(l)(c) is applicable in the context of other litigation, the plain language of the statute precludes the application of section 90.304 to the presumption created in section 627.7073(l)(c), which provides: The respective findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer and professional geologist as to the verification or elimination of a sinkhole loss and the findings, opinions, and recommendations of the...

...ilization and foundation repair shall be presumed correct. This language follows sections of legislation that establish the requirement that such a report be obtained as a condition precedent to a denial of benefits. Nothing in the plain language of section 627.7073(l)(c), or any other language in any section, indicates the type of presumption, and, therefore, which evidentiary statute is applicable here. The application of a presumption as alleged and argued by Universal at trial, that an insured could not overcome this presumption, would render any portion of section 627.7073 unconstitutional and inconsistent with all other provisions of the sinkhole statutes....

...Further, the stability of the banking industry and accounts were involved. The facts presently before the Court are clearly distinguishable from Combee for two distinct reasons. First, unlike the statute in Combee, the application of section 90.303 to section 627.7073(l)(c) does not contradict the plain language of the statute. Second, the presumption articulated in section 627.7073(l)(c) was enacted in 2005, long after the enactment of the Florida Evidence Code....

...As discussed above, prior to the enactment of the Florida Evidence Code, the procedural effect given to presumptions in Florida was defined exclusively by a common law approach. See Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Estate of Guzman, 421 So.2d 597, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). For section 627.7073(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), the statute at issue, the Legislature certainly knew how to create a burden shifting presumption pursuant to section 90.304, but chose not to do so....

...y owns personal property. 780 So.2d at 57 (emphasis supplied). The Court noted that the presumption in banking relationships in question was an ex *62 pression of social policy, and therefore should affect the burden of proof. Legislative History of Section 627.7073(l)(c) Universal asserts that section 627.7073(l)(c) is an expression of social policy and should therefore be governed by section 90.304....

...The Legislature determines that creating a complete electronic database of sinkhole activity serves an important purpose in protecting the public and in studying property claims activities in the insurance industry. (Emphasis supplied.) Preliminarily, the two “policies” that Universal alleges are advanced by section 627.7073 do not even appear to be “social policies.” At best, section 627.7065 indicates the need for research so that a social policy can be formed and the public protected....

...2 (quoting § 185.34, Fla. Stat. (1957)). Lastly, a review of the bill that enacted the statute (chapter 2005-111) and the staff analyses associated with that bill reveal that nothing in any of those documents indicates that the presumption articulated in section 627.7073(l)(e) is an expression of any social policy, let alone one that favors insurance companies....

...it did not do so here. See, e.g., ch. 93-401, § 1, Laws of Fla. Indeed, the Legislature did not provide such language in the bill, the statute, or even the staff analyses associated with the bill. Section 90.106 The application of section 90.304 to section 627.7073(l)(c), as articulated at trial, was also inconsistent with section 90.106 Florida Statutes (2005), which provides that “[a] judge may not sum up the evidence or comment to the jury upon the weight of the evidence, the credibility o...

...§ 627.7072, Fla. Stat. Thereafter, the engineer or geologist exclusively selected by the insurer tenders a report and certification to the insurer and the insured that outlines the analy-ses, any test methods, damages, and recommendations for repair. § 627.7073(1), Fla. Stat. During this initial claims process, these findings and recommendations by the insurer’s experts receive a statutory presumption of correctness. § 627.7073(l)(c), Fla....

...as volumetric changes of clay-based soil underlying the site, concrete shrinkage, and defective construction processes. As the insurance company’s, initial report, these conclusions received the initial statutory presumption of correctness pursuant to section 627.7073(l)(c)....

...See 82 So.3d at 57 . The plaintiff in Warfel filed an action for breach of contract after the insurer had denied the claim based on the report of the engineer selected and hired exclusively by the insurance company. Id. at 50 . Relevant here, section- 627.7073(l)(c) had been amended to provide that the findings and recommendations made by an engineer selected and hired by an insurer during the initial claim investigation process are statutorily presumed correct....

...urer’s expert report, which was also the reasoning of the court below. Id. at 50-51 . The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for new trial, reasoning that the Legislature did not intend to create a burden-shifting presumption in section 627.7073(l)(c). Id. at 51 . This Court affirmed. Id. at 65 . - On appeal, the issue before this Court was whether the presumption of correctness afforded to the insurer-engineer report during the initial claim process in section 627.7073(l)(c) extended to trial proceedings. See id. at 51 . There, we examined both the plain language and legislative history of section 627.7073(l)(c)....

...With respect to the plain wording of the statute itself, this Court recognized that when the Legislature intends to incorporate a burden-shifting provision into a statute, overwhelming precedent indicates that it does so explicitly. See id. at 58 . However, no such explicit language exists in section 627.7073(l)(c). See id. We thus concluded that to apply such a presumption absent direction in the statute would render section 627.7073(l)(c) unconstitutional....

...“If at all,” we explained, “the statutory plan is designed to require that insurance companies have expert reports in the [initial] claims process before denying a request for benefits.” Id. at 63 (emphasis supplied). Ultimately, we held *1214 that the presumption of correctness in section 627.7073(l)(c) is specific and limited to the initial claim adjustment process, and should not be applied to the trial process....

...at 57-58 (“[B]ecause the sinkhole statutes do not apply to the litigation context, the trial court’s .■.. treatment of this statute as evidentiary in nature in this case was incorrect”). • Notwithstanding our explicit holding in Warfel , the Fifth District in the case below applied the presumption in 627.7073(l)(c) to the litigation between Johnson and Omega....

...at shielding the ... insurance companies from claims of improper denials of claims.” Id. (quoting Warfel, 82 So.3d at 57 ). Yet, the court below failed to acknowledge the topic sentence of the same paragraph, where we plainly stated, “Nothing in section 627.7073, the statute in question here, justifies application of that statute to the litigation context.” Warfel, 82 So.3d at 57 (emphasis supplied)....

...Consistent with Warfel , we reiterate that the initial claims process in the sinkhole statutes does not supersede or justify an incorrect denial of benefits under section 627.428. We thus hold that the presumption of correctness granted to the insurer’s investigative report in section 627.7073(l)(c) of the sinkhole statutes is only applicable to the sinkhole initial claims process, and does not continue to apply during the trial stage....

...The 2010 version of section 627.707(5), Florida Statutes (2010), states in part as follows: (a) Subject to paragraph (b), 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 as provided under s. 627.7073, and in consultation with the policyholder, subject to the coverage and terms of the policy....

...ngineer unilaterally dictates the method of subsurface repairs. The parties do not dispute the fact that all three engineers who evaluated Roker’s home complied with Florida sinkhole testing standards. To the extent that Tower Hill is arguing that section 627.7073(l)(c) creates a presumption which justifies mandating that the insured accept the recommendation of an insurer’s expert, the idea that an insurance company is entitled to rely on that presumption in the litigation context was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in Warfel, 82 So.3d at 57 . In Warfel , the Florida Supreme Court explained that “[t]he application of a presumption as alleged and argued by [the insurer] at trial, that an insured could not overcome this presumption, would render any portion of section 627.7073 unconstitutional and inconsistent with all other provisions of the sinkhole statutes.” Id. at 58. Ultimately, the supreme court held that the presumption disappeared once evidence rebutting it was introduced. Id. at 59. Because Roker submitted evidence rebutting Tower Hill’s report, Tower Hill may not rely on section 627.7073(l)(c) to disprove the existence of a material fact....

...SDII estimated the cost of the recommended remediation at $62,890. Four months later, on October 3, 2013, Colfin filed a Motion to Set Aside and Rescind Foreclosure Sale Based upon Fraud, Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Failure to Timely Comply with Florida Statute § 627.7073....

...Colfin pointed out that three years had passed between the time of the testing in 2010 and the filing of the Executive Claim Report in 2013 and that the reason for the delay was unknown. Colfin concluded that the failure to disclose the existence of the sinkhole activity in accordance with section 627.7073 constituted fraud and that as a result of the fraud and inequity against Colfin, the court should set aside the sale. U.S....

...Presumably, the correct year of the statute, if it were applicable, would be 2010 based on the date that SDII performed its testing, which is the earliest date that the obligation to file the report may have arisen. -3- foreclosure sale. It asserted that Colfin's reliance on section 627.7073 to establish fraud was misplaced....

...Sanoba's testimony, Colfin had performed a title search on the property before the sale which did not reveal the existence of the sinkhole because the report had not been recorded. Colfin alleged that it was unknown why there was a three-year delay in recording the report as required by section 627.7073(2)(a), or who was responsible for the failure to timely record the report....

...ment to Colfin regarding a material fact, which was known to be false when it was made, with the intention that Colfin rely on that false statement, and that Colfin did so rely. Further, as argued by U.S. Bank, Colfin's reliance on section 627.7073 to establish any sort of fraud or impropriety is misplaced. Section 627.7073(2)(a) provides in pertinent part that: Any insurer that has paid a claim for a sinkhole loss shall file a copy of the report and certification, prepared [by a professional engin...

...obligation to file the report and certification had not yet arisen at the time of the foreclosure sale. Moreover, Colfin does not allege that it was defrauded in its purchase of the subject property by the insurance company insuring the property. Section 627.7073(2) further provides that (a) ....

...In March 2005, Universal issued an all-risks homeowners' insurance policy to Mr. Warfel. The policy covered sinkhole claims. Effective June 1, 2005, the legislature amended sections 627.706 to 627.707, Florida Statutes (2005), and enacted sections 627.7065, 627.7072, and 627.7073 relating to database information, testing standards, and reporting requirements for sinkhole claims....

...Alternatively, Universal argued that any impairment was overridden by the State's interest in resolving a sinkhole insurance claim crisis. Universal also asked the trial court to determine that section 90.304, Florida Statutes (2007), allowed a jury instruction based on section 627.7073(1)(c) as a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof....

...They concluded that a sinkhole, at least in part, caused the damage. Universal presented testimony of a structural engineer, a geotechnical engineer, and a geologist, all affiliated with SD II Global. They concluded that sinkhole activity did not damage the home. Universal posited that section 627.7073(1)(c) required Mr. Warfel to prove that he suffered a sinkhole loss as specifically defined by statute. The 2005 version of section 627.7073(1)(c) provided as follows: The respective findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer and professional geologist as to the verification or elimination of a sinkhole loss and the findings, opinions, and recommendations of...

...neer as to land and building stabilization and foundation repair shall be presumed correct. [3] Universal retained its experts under section 627.707(2) to conduct the testing required by section 627.7072 and to issue a *138 report in accordance with section 627.7073. This report bears the presumption of correctness. Universal also contended that section 627.7073(1)(c) created a section 90.304 presumption because it implemented public policy relating to a sinkhole insurance crisis....

...You must presume that report is correct. That report is the only report in evidence. You can take it back in the room. Read it. You will presume—the Judge will instruct you you must presume that's correct. Throughout the trial court proceedings, Mr. Warfel argued that the section 627.7073(1)(c) presumption was a "vanishing" or "bursting bubble" presumption, a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence but not one shifting the burden of proof to him....

...We are also mindful that, historically, an all-risks policy encumbers the insurer with the burden to prove that a claimed loss is not covered. See Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So.2d 1386, 1388-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We must assume that the legislature *139 was aware of this fact when it enacted section 627.7073(1)(c)....

...3d DCA 1990) (explaining that the statutory presumption of paternity under section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is a rebuttable presumption and the legislature specifically provided that it was governed by section 90.304 of the evidence code). In contrast, the legislature has not declared that the presumption in section 627.7073(1)(c) is a public policy-related presumption. Nor did the legislature specifically provide that section 627.7073(1)(c) was to operate as a burden-shifting presumption under sections 90.302(2) or 90.304. Absent a clear legislative directive, we must conclude that section 627.7073(1)(c) is a "vanishing" or "bursting bubble" presumption that affected only Mr....

...trial is required. Reversed and remanded. However, because our ruling may affect insurance claims for sinkhole losses throughout Florida, we certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance: DOES THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 627.7073(1)(C) CREATE A PRESUMPTION AFFECTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER SECTION 90.304 OR DOES THE LANGUAGE CREATE A PRESUMPTION AFFECTING THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 90.303. WALLACE, J., Concurs. VILLANTI, J., Dissents with opinion. VILLANTI, Judge, Dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding section 627.7073....

...3d DCA 2005) (noting that decisions regarding jury instructions rest within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudicial error). In this case, the statute stated that the findings, opinions, and recommendations of the experts were presumed correct. See § 627.7073(1)(c)....

...Section 627.7072 sets forth specific standards to test for the presence or absence of sinkholes. The testing must conform to the Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 57 (2005). § 627.7072(2). Section 627.707(2) then requires that a report be issued as provided in section 627.7073. Id. Section 627.7073 specifies what must be included in that report. Section 627.7073(1)(c) then clearly states: The respective findings, opinions, and recommendations of the engineer and professional geologist as to the verification or elimination of a sinkhole loss and the findings, opinions, and recommendations of...

...ns under section 90.304. While this may be true, as illustrated by Caldwell, the fact that the statute does not expressly state that it contains a burden-shifting presumption is not always dispositive of the issue. In fact, this case illustrates why section 627.7073's presumption ought to be a burden-shifting presumption....

...Upon receiving Mr. Warfel's claim, Universal hired experts whose qualifications met the requirements of the relevant statute and had those experts conduct the type of testing required by the statute. The experts then prepared a report as required by section 627.7073....

...Warfel's experts then simply disagreed with the report's conclusions and opined that a sinkhole contributed to the damage to Mr. Warfel's property. To apply a "vanishing" presumption under these facts effectively negates the presumption of correctness conferred upon the report by section 627.7073(1)(c)....

...(2) Following the insurer's initial inspection, the insurer shall engage an 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, if: (a) The insurer is unable to identify a valid cause of the damage or discovers damage to the structure which is consistent with sinkhole loss; or (b) The policyholder demands testing in accordance with this section or s....

...[2] The trial court denied Universal's motion as to sections 627.706 to 627.707, finding that these amendments were substantive and not applicable retroactively. The trial court granted Universal's motion as to the three new enactments, sections 627.7065, 627.7072, and 627.7073, relating to sinkhole database, testing, and reporting requirements, reasoning that the statutes were procedural and did not involve an issue of retroactivity. Although Mr. Warfel takes issue with the latter ruling, we find no error and discuss the matter no further. [3] The legislature made minor changes to section 627.7073(1)(c) in 2006, none of which are relevant here....

...[7] We recognize the legislature's desire to stem the tide of sinkhole-related insurance claims. Unquestionably, certain provisions of the statutes described earlier in this opinion reflect a concern with identifying and advising homeowners and others of potential sinkhole-prone areas. See §§ 627.7065, 627.7072, 627.7073. For example, the reporting and recording provisions of sections 627.7065 and 627.7073 promote public awareness....

...because the Munozes were under no obligation to provide a contrary report to Citizens before filing suit. It is true that Citizens was required by statute to hire an engineer or geologist to conduct testing and issue a report. See § 627.707(2), (4), Fla. Stat. (2010). And section 627.7073(1)(c) does provide that this report "shall be presumed correct." But this statutory scheme was "designed to provide a framework for insurance companies to follow when encountering specific types of claims, in this case claims...

...Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Contract No. 242/99, 930 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). -3- involving sinkhole damage. The application of a specific provision within that scheme [such as the presumption in section 627.7073(1)(c)] to the evidentiary context is both misguided and inappropriate." Universal Ins....

...w or in what respect State Farm breached its contract of insurance. From the record before this court, it received a sinkhole claim and processed that claim as it was required to do under section 627.707. It obtained the sinkhole report described in section 627.7073....

...Without regard to the nature of any evidentiary presumption that may be given to that report in a trial, for the purposes of processing this claim, the legislature has established that a report prepared in accordance with the statute is “presumed correct.” See § 627.7073(l)(c); see also Warfel, 82 So.3d 47 ....

...r the policyholder demands testing, the insurer shall engage a professional engineer or geologist to conduct testing and render a report regarding the cause of the damage. Id. § 627.707(2). The report shall be in compliance with the requirements of section 627.7073, Florida Statutes, and shall be issued to the insurer and the insured. Id. § 627.7073(1). The findings, opinions, and recommendations contained in the report “shall be presumed correct.” Id. § 627.7073(l)(c). If a report is issued pursuant to section 627.7073, an alternative procedure for resolution of disputed sinkhole claims is available....

...After Omega received Johnson’s claim for policy benefits, it complied with its statutory obligations by commissioning a professional engineer to identify the cause of loss and issue a report. § 627.707(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). As previously indicated, such reports are presumed correct. Id. § 627.7073(l)(c)....

...the premises to determine “if there has been physical damage to the structure.” § 627.707(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). After the initial inspection, the insurer must hire a professional engineer to inspect the property and test for a sinkhole. Under Section 627.7073, Florida Statutes (2010), sinkhole loss is “verified” if the engineer determines that “the cause of the actual physical and structural damage is sinkhole activity.” Section 627.7073, Florida Statutes (2010), requires the engineer to issue a written report, even if the engineer eliminates sinkhole activity as “the cause of damage to the structure.” If paying a claim for sinkhole loss, the insurer must file a copy of the report with the clerk of the court for recording. § 627.7073(2)(a), Fla....

...estimated costs of stabilizing the land and any covered structures or buildings and other appropriate remediation or structural repairs.” § 627.7074(12), Fla. Stat. (2010). *1230 First, the adjoining use of “physical” and “structural” in Section 627.7073 (“actual physical and structural damage”) confirms that “physical damage” (read: “any damage”) is different from, and broader than, “structural damage,” which focuses on damage to parts ensuring the building’s stability....

...ing — “structure” means something different from “building” (just like “foundation” means something different from “building”). 8 *1231 Thus, neither Section 627.707(2) (“if there has been physical damage to the structure”) nor Section 627.7073 (“the cause of damage to the structure”) mean “damage to the building.” The statutory history and the balance- of the statute confirm the obvious — that “structural damage to the building” does not mean “any damage to...

...ical and structural damage”) than required by the coverage clause ("structural damage”). A plausible reason for the disparity between the extent of damage an insurer must cover and the extent of damage on which an engineer must report appears in Section 627.7073, which requires an insurer paying a claim to file a copy of the engineer's report with the clerk of court, after which the clerk must record the report to provide notice of the damage to a subsequent purchaser....

...entitled to a directed verdict due to a so-called statutory presumption of correctness, which was afforded to certain findings and recommendations of engineering or geological professionals in sinkhole claims under the law applicable in 2010. See § 627.7073(1)(c), Fla....

...ity; the professional must issue a written report. §§ 627.707(2)(a), .7073(1). The professional's report certifying sinkhole damage will include a description of the tests performed and a recommended method to stabilize and repair the property. § 627.7073(1)(a). The report is presumed correct. § 627.7073(1)(c). If the professional verifies a sinkhole loss, the insurer must pay to stabilize the property "in accordance with the recommendations of the professional engineer as provided under s. 627.7073, and in consultation with the policyholder." § 627.707(5)(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. -4- $129,070–$31,750 of which would be for underpinning....

...utral evaluator's recommendation if the insured were not able to challenge the method of repair in court before a jury. Id. We added that, in the litigation context, the insurer is not entitled to rely on section 627.7073(c)'s presumption that the insurer's engineer's recommendation is correct when the insured provides evidence challenging the insurer's proposed repair method....

issues a “sinkhole report” as described in section 627.7073. It is unlikely that this statute was written

the clerk of court for recording pursuant to section 627.7073, Florida Statutes, be acknowledged and notarized