; and (B) there is damage to the foundation of, or structural damage to, the structure that was not present before the flood, as demonstrated by a certification from the policyholder. (2) Rebuttal In determining coverage as a result of the rebuttable presumption under paragraph (1), an insurance company may rebut the presumption only by providing the Administrator with an engineering report that— (A) meets standards issued by the Administrator under paragraph (3); and (B) clearly demonstrates that the physical damage to the foundation of, or structural damage to, a structure described in paragraph (1) was caused directly by earth movement that was not— (i) caused by the horizontal pressure from standing or slow-moving floodwater (commonly known as hydrostatic pressure ); (ii) caused by the force of floodwater that causes the vertical uplift from the underside of a horizontal foundation component, such as a concrete slab, footer, or structural floor assembly (commonly known as buoyancy ); (iii) caused by pressure imposed on an object, such as a wall of a building, by high-velocity floodwater or waves flowing against and around the building (commonly known as hydrodynamic force ); (iv) caused by floodwater moving along the surface of the ground causing soil to suddenly erode or undermine, resulting in failure of a foundation or to one of the structural components of the foundation (commonly known as scouring ); or (v) otherwise caused by flood. (3) Minimum standards for engineering reports The Administrator shall issue minimum standards— (A) regarding the form and content of engineering reports used to assist insurance claims adjusters with respect to carrying out this subsection; and (B) that— (i) include a requirement that any such engineering report shall be signed and have a seal affixed by an engineer who is licensed in the State in which the property to which the claim relates is located; and (ii) are consistent with generally accepted practices in— (I) the field of forensic engineering