Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671

Hector and Alba Munoz discovered structural cracks in their insured home in Dec. 2009 and reported a claim to Citizens Property Insurance in Jan. 2010.
Citizens ordered a statutorily required sinkhole evaluation from Madrid Engineering, which concluded there was no sinkhole; Citizens denied the claim.
The Munozes obtained a contrary report from SDII concluding the damage was from a sinkhole but did not provide that report to Citizens before suing in May 2011.
At trial the Munozes presented evidence of sinkhole damage; Citizens moved for directed verdict arguing its engineer's statutorily presumed report precluded liability absent a contrary report before suit.
The jury found for the Munozes; the trial court had also instructed that the policy remained an "all risks" policy despite a sinkhole endorsement, shifting burden to the insurer to prove excluded causes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insured was required to provide a contrary engineering report to insurer before suing after insurer’s statutorily compliant sinkhole report	Munoz: No statutory or policy obligation to produce a contrary report before filing suit	Citizens: Its engineer’s report is presumptively correct under §627.7073 and Munozes should have provided contrary expert before suit; thus directed verdict warranted	Denied. Court held Munozes not required to give Citizens a contrary report prior to suit; insurer’s statutorily presumed report does not foreclose litigation or automatically entitle insurer to judgment
Proper allocation of burden of proof given an "all risks" policy with a sinkhole endorsement	Munoz: Endorsement does not convert the underlying all‑risks policy into named‑perils; insured must prove loss and then insurer must prove exclusions apply	Citizens: Sinkhole endorsement narrows coverage and should be treated as named‑peril for sinkhole, shifting burdens differently	Held for Munozes. Following Hudson, the endorsement narrowed an exclusion but did not change the all‑risks nature; insured must show loss during policy period, then insurer must prove excluded cause

Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012) (statutory presumption for insurer's engineer's report does not foreclose litigation over sinkhole damage)
Hudson v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (endorsement narrowing an exclusion does not convert an all‑risks policy into a named‑perils policy; burden shifts to insurer to prove excluded cause)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach that gives rise to a cause of action)
Strubble v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 110 Cal. Rptr. 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (endorsement narrowing an exclusion should not change the all‑risks character of the underlying policy)