Catastrophic ground cover collapse vs sinkhole coverage

Florida splits ground movement into one coverage every authorized property insurer must include and one it must only make available. The examiners build scenarios that satisfy some elements of the mandatory coverage but not all of them, and the answer turns on the element that is missing. Learn the four elements as a checklist, because three out of four is a denial.

Questions and answers, explained

All 9 questions above, with the correct answer and why it is correct. Everything here is on catastrophic ground cover collapse vs sinkhole coverage.

1. An engineer confirms that sinkhole activity has cracked a home's foundation and left an interior floor visibly out of level. There is no depression in the ground visible to the naked eye, and the building has not been condemned. The homeowner's policy contains only the coverage Florida law makes mandatory; the insured declined the optional coverage that was offered for an additional premium. What is the coverage result?

   • ACovered, because an engineer has confirmed the sinkhole activity that caused the damage
   • BCovered, because every property policy issued in Florida must include sinkhole loss coverage
   • CCovered up to 25 percent of Coverage A under the law and ordinance provision of the policy
   • DNot covered, because the loss does not meet the definition of catastrophic ground cover collapse and sinkhole coverage was declinedCorrect

   Why: Under s. 627.706, F.S., every authorized property insurer must provide coverage for catastrophic ground cover collapse, which is defined narrowly and requires all four elements to be present: abrupt collapse of the ground cover, a depression in the ground cover clearly visible to the naked eye, structural damage to the covered building including the foundation, and the insured structure being condemned and ordered to be vacated by the governmental agency authorized to do so. Two of those four elements are missing here. Sinkhole loss coverage — which reaches structural damage caused by sinkhole activity without requiring condemnation — is a separate coverage the insurer must make available for an appropriate additional premium, and this insured declined it. This distinction is one of the most heavily tested Florida-specific concepts on the 2-20 exam.

   Reference s. 627.706, F.S.

2. A Spring Hill homeowner notices cracks in her slab and a small visible depression in her yard. An engineer confirms that sinkhole activity has caused structural damage to the foundation, but the building has not been condemned and no agency has ordered it vacated. Her policy contains no sinkhole endorsement. How does her policy respond?

   • AIt pays the loss, because every property insurer in Florida is required to cover structural damage caused by sinkhole activity.
   • BIt does not pay, because catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage is also optional in Florida and this homeowner did not buy it.
   • CIt pays the loss, subject to the mandatory 10 percent sinkhole deductible that Florida law imposes on such claims.
   • DIt does not pay, because catastrophic ground cover collapse requires that the structure be condemned and ordered vacated.Correct

   Why: Florida separates two very different coverages. Under s. 627.706, F.S., every insurer authorized to transact property insurance in this state must provide coverage for a catastrophic ground cover collapse — that coverage is not optional. But the statutory definition is demanding and requires all of the following: an abrupt collapse of the ground cover; a depression in the ground cover clearly visible to the naked eye; structural damage to the covered building, including the foundation; and the insured structure being condemned and ordered to be vacated by the governmental agency authorized by law to issue such an order. This homeowner's facts satisfy some elements but not the condemnation-and-vacate element, so the mandatory coverage does not respond. Sinkhole loss — structural damage to the covered building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity — is the broader, separate coverage, and the statute requires only that the insurer make it available for an appropriate additional premium. Option B is the mirror-image error, treating the mandatory coverage as optional; option C invents a mandatory percentage, though the statute does permit personal lines residential sinkhole deductible options of 1, 2, 5 or 10 percent of the dwelling limits where the coverage is purchased.

   Reference s. 627.706, F.S.

3. After a sinkhole report is issued on a Pasco County home, the insurer and the homeowner disagree about causation and repair method. The homeowner files a request for neutral evaluation with the Department of Financial Services. Which statement correctly describes the program?

   • AIt is binding on the insurer but not on the policyholder, and each side pays half of the evaluator's fee.
   • BIt is available only to the insurer, and only after the policyholder has rejected the insurer's repair plan.
   • CIt replaces the policy's appraisal clause and decides the dollar amount of the loss, not the cause of damage.
   • DIt is mandatory once either party requests it, the recommendation is nonbinding, and the insurer pays the cost.Correct

   Why: Under s. 627.7074, F.S., neutral evaluation is available to either the policyholder or the insurer once a sinkhole report has been issued. The process is mandatory in the sense that it must go forward if either party requests it, but the neutral evaluator's recommendation is not binding on any party, and the insurer must pay the reasonable costs associated with the neutral evaluation (a party who hires a court reporter bears that cost). A is the tempting answer because candidates remember that the insurer bears the expense and assume that must come with binding effect on the insurer. Filing the request also tolls the applicable time requirements for filing suit until 60 days after the neutral evaluation concludes.

   Reference s. 627.7074, F.S.

4. Which statement correctly describes what an authorized Florida property insurer must do regarding ground-movement coverage on a personal residential policy?

   • AIt must include both catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage and sinkhole loss coverage in every policy
   • BIt must include catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage and make sinkhole loss coverage availableCorrect
   • CIt must include sinkhole loss coverage and offer catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage as an option
   • DNeither coverage is required, because both are entirely optional endorsements the insured may buy

   Why: Section 627.706, F.S., splits Florida ground-movement exposure into a mandatory piece and an optional piece. Catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage is built into every property insurance policy issued by an authorized insurer and cannot be removed. Sinkhole loss coverage is broader — it responds to structural damage caused by sinkhole activity without the condemnation requirement — and the insurer must make it available for an appropriate additional premium, which the policyholder may accept or decline.

   Reference s. 627.706, F.S.

5. A Brooksville homeowner with $300,000 of dwelling coverage asks her insurer to add sinkhole loss coverage for an additional premium. Which deductibles does Florida law allow that coverage to carry?

   • AA flat $500 deductible, the same figure Florida law sets for the all-other-perils portion of a residential policy.
   • BWhatever percentage deductible the policyholder already selected for hurricane losses, applied to any sinkhole claim.
   • CNo deductible at all, because Florida requires sinkhole loss coverage to be written on a first-dollar basis.
   • DA deductible of 1, 2, 5 or 10 percent of the policy dwelling limits, with a premium discount for each.Correct

   Why: Section 627.706(1)(b) requires every insurer authorized to write property insurance in Florida to make sinkhole loss coverage available for an appropriate additional premium, and it provides that a policy for residential property insurance may include a deductible for sinkhole losses equal to 1 percent, 2 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent of the policy dwelling limits, with an appropriate premium discount offered with each deductible amount. Note the asymmetry the statute draws: making the coverage available is mandatory, while the deductible menu is permissive, so an insurer is not compelled to offer all four. The insurer may also require an inspection of the property before issuing the coverage, and under paragraph (1)(c) it may restrict both sinkhole loss and catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage to the principal building. Option B is the tempting one because Florida does run percentage deductibles for hurricane losses, but those come from s. 627.701 and are chosen separately; the hurricane menu and the sinkhole menu are two different statutory schemes.

   Reference s. 627.706(1)(b), F.S.

6. A policyholder who purchased optional sinkhole loss coverage first learns in April 2023 that sinkhole activity has structurally damaged her home. She gives her insurer notice of the claim in July 2025. Under s. 627.706, F.S., the claim is:

   • ATimely, because notice deadlines for property claims run from the date of loss
   • BTimely, because a sinkhole claim may be reported within 5 years of discovery
   • CBarred, because sinkhole notice must be given within 1 year of the discovery
   • DBarred, because notice came more than 2 years after she knew of the lossCorrect

   Why: Section 627.706(5), F.S., bars any sinkhole claim — initial, supplemental, or reopened — unless notice was given to the insurer within 2 years after the policyholder knew or reasonably should have known about the sinkhole loss. April 2023 to July 2025 is more than 2 years, so the claim is barred. Option A is the near-miss worth studying: sinkhole is the exception to Florida's usual structure, because the clock runs from discovery rather than from the date of loss, which matters enormously when subsidence damage develops slowly and invisibly. Compare s. 627.70132, F.S., which does run its 1-year and 18-month deadlines from the date of loss for ordinary property claims.

   Reference s. 627.706(5), F.S.

7. After a sinkhole report is issued, an insurer and its policyholder still disagree about causation and the appropriate method of repair. The policyholder files a request for neutral evaluation with the Department of Financial Services. Which statement about that process is correct?

   • AIt is nonbinding, and the insurer pays the reasonable costs of the evaluationCorrect
   • BThe neutral evaluator's written recommendation binds both parties once issued
   • CThe policyholder and the insurer split the evaluator's fee evenly between them
   • DThe insurer may simply decline to take part, since the request is voluntary

   Why: Section 627.7074, F.S., creates neutral evaluation as the alternative procedure for resolving disputed sinkhole claims. It is nonbinding, but it is mandatory if either party requests it, and the insurer must pay the reasonable costs associated with the evaluation. Option D is the trap: participation is compulsory for the insurer even though the outcome is not. Filing a request also tolls the applicable time requirements for filing suit for 60 days following the conclusion of the neutral evaluation process or the time prescribed in s. 95.11, F.S., whichever is later, and the parties keep full access to the courts afterward. Distinguish this from the s. 627.7015, F.S., mediation program, which handles general first-party residential disputes rather than sinkhole causation and repair method.

   Reference s. 627.7074, F.S.

8. A policyholder disputes the engineering report her insurer relied on to deny a sinkhole claim, and requests neutral evaluation through the Department of Financial Services. Which statement is correct?

   • AThe evaluator's recommendation binds the insurer but leaves the policyholder free to sue
   • BThe insurer may refuse to participate if its own engineer already inspected the home
   • CThe policyholder pays the evaluator's fee unless the report is decided in her favor
   • DThe evaluator's recommendation is not binding, and the insurer pays the reasonable costsCorrect

   Why: Section 627.7074, F.S., creates an alternative dispute resolution program for sinkhole claims, administered through a list of neutral evaluators certified by the department. Either the policyholder or the insurer may request it, participation is mandatory once a party requests it, the insurer pays the reasonable costs of the neutral evaluation, and the neutral evaluator's recommendation is not binding on either party — both keep their access to court. Option A is the strongest distractor because one-sided binding effect exists in other insurance contexts, but here the statute is symmetrical and nonbinding. Note the contrast with s. 627.7015 mediation, which is also insurer-paid and nonbinding but covers general residential property disputes rather than sinkhole causation.

   Reference s. 627.7074, F.S.

9. A policy includes optional sinkhole loss coverage. The homeowner learns in March 2024 that cracking in her home is sinkhole-related, but reports nothing to the insurer until August 2026. What is the result?

   • ABarred; notice was due within 2 years after she knew of the sinkhole lossCorrect
   • BTimely, because sinkhole claims follow the 5-year contract limitation period
   • CTimely, because the 1-year property notice deadline excludes sinkhole losses
   • DBarred, because every sinkhole claim must be reported within 180 days of loss

   Why: Section 627.706(5), F.S., bars any claim under a policy providing sinkhole coverage — initial, supplemental, or reopened — unless notice was given to the insurer within 2 years after the policyholder knew or reasonably should have known about the sinkhole loss. Notice in August 2026 for knowledge acquired in March 2024 is roughly five months late. Option B is the trap worth understanding: 5 years is the limitation period for filing a lawsuit for breach of a property insurance contract under s. 95.11(2)(e), F.S., but a limitation period for suing is not the same thing as a statutory notice bar, and the notice bar always bites first. Note also that the sinkhole clock runs from discovery, while the general property notice bar in s. 627.70132 runs from the date of loss.

   Reference s. 627.706(5), F.S.

Drill the whole domain

• Florida Statutes, Rules and Regulations Pertinent to Property and Casualty (15%)
• Types of Property Policies (14%)
• Property Policy Provisions and Contract Law (8%)

Other topics

• Florida's hurricane deductible
• Florida's separate roof deductible
• Florida's Valued Policy Law
• Florida property claim deadlines
• Occurrence vs claims-made liability forms
• HO forms compared: HO-2 through HO-8
• Florida comparative negligence after HB 837
• Florida PIP: the 14-day rule and 80/60 split
• Citizens eligibility and the 20 percent rule
• Law and ordinance and replacement cost
• Bad faith and the civil remedy notice

See all topics · Study Guides · Full practice exam