Second District Court of Appeal Affirms Jury Verdict in Favor of Insurer in Sinkhole Case

by Kelly M. Vogt

In Carbonell v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida upheld a jury verdict in favor of Citizens in a sinkhole case. The jury found that the insured’s house did not suffer structural damage caused by sinkhole activity covered under her homeowner’s insurance policy with Citizens. The insured contested the verdict, primarily challenging evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. The court, however, determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, affirming the decision in favor of Citizens. The case revolved around the interpretation of sinkhole activity and whether it caused structural damage to the insured’s property as defined by the Citizens policy.

The background of the case involved the insured reporting possible sinkhole activity to Citizens due to observed cracks and sinking in her driveway. Citizens hired a forensic engineering firm to assess the situation, and their findings concluded that the observed damage did not meet the statutory definition of structural damage caused by sinkhole activity. Citizens accordingly denied coverage. The insured then sued Citizens, seeking a declaration of coverage for structural damage resulting from sinkhole activity, leading to the trial and subsequent appeal.

On appeal, the court addressed two key issues raised by the insured. First, the insured contended that the trial court improperly limited her cross-examination of John Edwards, Citizens’ expert witness on the topic of sinkhole activity. The court rejected this argument, stating that the insured’s attempt to cross-examine the witness exceeded the scope of the witness’s direct examination by attempting to elicit an opinion on sinkhole activity, an area for which he had not been qualified as an expert. The court emphasized that cross-examination should relate to credibility or matters elicited in direct testimony, and the insured failed to demonstrate the witness’s qualification to offer an opinion on sinkhole activity.

Second, the insured asserted that the trial court erroneously denied her request to present rebuttal evidence from the deposition of Robert Brown, Citizens’ engineer who originally investigated the loss for Citizens. The court acknowledged her intention to use Mr. Brown’s testimony to show downward soil movement causing damage to the home, similar to her own experts’ opinions. However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to exclude Mr. Brown’s deposition, deeming it cumulative. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in these evidentiary rulings, rejecting the insured’s arguments and affirming the judgment in favor of Citizens.