MARIA PUPO, APPELLANT,

v.

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE

MORRIS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in Maria Pupo’s breach of contract action against Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA). The breach of contract claim arose after .Pupo’s home suffered sinkhole damage and thereafter the parties disagreed over the method of rer pair and the amount of insurance proceeds to which Pupo was entitled. Although Pupo obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $28,000 for above-ground damages and $170,000 for below-ground damages, the trial court ultimately entered a final judgment in the amount of $135,515, which represented Pupo’s policy limits of $138,115 less her policy deductible and .less the statutory deductible set forth in section 631.57(l)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2009). '

Pupo initiated this appeal arguing that contrary to this and other appellate courts’ prior holdings, the amended definition of “covered claim” in section 631.54(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2011), does not apply to claims arising out of insurance policies that were issued before the effective dates of *1000the statutory amendment.1 In response, FIGA argued for an affirmance but conceded that remand was necessary because the trial court erroneously limited Pupo’s damages to Pupo’s policy limits. FIGA’s concession was based on a February 23, 2015, order entered by the Leon County Circuit Court (Second Judicial Circuit Case No. 2011-CA-3221) wherein the court determined that FIGA was permitted to pay for actual repairs for sinkhole loss that are above insurance policy limits up to the maximum combined statutory cap of $500,000 pursuant to section 631.57(l)(a)(2).2 As a result, FIGA agreed that the final judgment should be corrected to reflect that Pupo is required to enter into repair contracts within the jury verdict amounts and that FIGA is required to pay actual repair costs to the various contractors up to the. combined statutory cap.

At oral argument, Pupo’s counsel notified this court that the parties had reached a settlement and that Pupo agreed with FIGA that this court should affirm the final judgment but remand for correction of the amount as articulated in FIGA’s answer brief. FIGA’s counsel also acknowledged the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment. We direct that on remand, the trial court should correct the final judgment to reflect that Pupo is required to enter into repair contracts within the jury verdict amount's and that FIGA is required to pay actual repair costs to the contractors up to the combined statutory cap set forth in section 631.57(l)(a)(2).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.