Severin and Stephanie Hegel sought coverage for damage to their Florida home under a policy insuring “sinkhole loss,” defined as structural damage to the building caused by sinkhole activity. The policy and the governing 2005 Florida statute did not define “structural damage.” The district court treated the term as any damage to the structure, granted the Hegels summary judgment, and awarded $166,518.17. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Applying Florida law, it held that “structural damage” cannot mean any physical damage because that reading would make “structural” meaningless and include purely cosmetic harm. The court adopted the ordinary meaning of the phrase as damage that impairs the building’s structural integrity. It declined to import the narrower definitions in the Florida Building Code or a later statutory amendment into the policy, explaining that courts may not rewrite an insurance contract or add terms the parties did not include. Because the district court had resolved the case under the incorrect definition, the appellate court remanded for a determination of whether a genuine factual dispute exists about the amount of qualifying structural damage caused by sinkhole activity, followed by summary judgment or trial as appropriate.