
    CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Idelfonso Bolano DUENAS and Clementina Aguilar Perez, Appellees.
    No. 2D14-3858.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 10, 2016.
    Kara Berard Rockenbach of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Brooks Rathet and Adrian Chandler-Harris of Bromagen & Rathet, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
    Aaron S. Kling of Smith, Kling & Thompson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
   CRENSHAW, Judge.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a final judgment entered in favor of its insureds, Idelfonso Bolano Dueñas and Clementina Aguilar Perez, following a jury trial on damages caused by sinkhole activity. Citizens argues that it was error for the trial court to order Citizens to pay for subsurface repairs before the insureds entered into a contract for those repairs. We agree.

As this court has explained, once the jury finds that the insured has sustained a covered loss, the trial court must enforce the contract, “including the policy’s restrictions on Citizens’ obligations to pay for the cost of the repair for subsurface damages.” Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, - So.3d -, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D448, D450, 2016 WL 670189 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 19, 2016); see also Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So.3d 2, 4 (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), [the insurer] had the authority to withhold payment for subsurface repairs until [the insured] entered into a contract for those repairs.”), reh’g granted (Oct. 27, 2014), review denied, 163 So.3d 511 (Fla.2015). Here, the sinkhole loss payment provision of the contract authorized Citizens to withhold payment until the insureds entered into a contract for the subsurface repairs.

Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the final judgment that requires Citizens to pay for subsurface repairs before the insureds contracted to make those repairs. We affirm all remaining portions of the final judgment.

LaROSE and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.  