### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 31033
F I RS T AM ER I CA N B ANK , P l a i n tiff

–A p p ell a n t, v. F IR S T AM E R IC A N T RA N S P O R T A T IO N T IT L E IN S U R A N C E C O ., D efen da n t–A pp el l ee .

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d O W E N an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P R ISC ILL AR
. O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg e: Appe l l antFi r s t Am e r i c an Bank ( Fi r s t Am e r i c an o r Bank) ap pe al s a gr ant o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f a p p e lle e F ir s t A m e r ic a n T r a n s p o r ta tio n T itle In su ra n ce C o. (FA T T IC ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt ru l ed tha t t h e m ea su re of i n d em n i ty unde rFi r s tAm e r i c an’ s i ns ur anc e po l i c y i s l i m i t e d t o t he a m o untb y w hi c h t he pa ym en t s t o th e hol ders of t h e pri m i n g l i en s f or necessari es r edu ced F i rst A m eri can ’ s r ecovery on i t s s h i p m ort gag es an d t h at t h e P ol i cy di d not al l ow F i rst A m erican to recov er co n seq u en ti a lda m a ge s. W e a ff irm i n p a rt, re ve rse inpa rt, a n dre m a n dfo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 31033

2 I I n 2 00 4, F i r s tAm e r i c an l o ane d Ti t an Crui s e Li ne s , I nc . (Ti t an) $28, 000, 000 t o suppor tT i t an’ s ope r at i on of a gam i ng ves se lknow n as t he O c ean Jew el
. A s col l ater alf or th i s l oan , T i t an executed shi p m ort gag es i n favor of F i rst Am e r i c an o n t he O c e an Je w e l , a nd o n t he Em e r al d Exp r e s s ( Em e r al d) and t he S a p p h ir e E x p r e s s ( S a p p h ir e )— tw o h ig h s p e e dca ta m a r a n s u s e dto s h u tt le
c u s to m e r s b a c ka n dfo r th fr o m la n dto th e O c e a n J e w e l. FA TTI C i s s ue d t w o s epa r at e t i t l e i ns ur anc e po l i c i e s t o Fi r s tAm e r i c an. Th e f i r stpoli c y s ec ure d t he O c ean Je w eland t he s ec ond poli c y— th e p oli c y at i ssue i n t h i s c ase— secured the E m eral d an d the S ap ph i re. T h e pol i ci es cros s- ref

erenced each ot h er a n d p rovi ded a si n gl e aggrega t e coverage l i m i tof $ 2 8 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

— th e v a lu e o f F ir s t A m e r ic a n ’ s lo a n to T ita n . T h e pri m a ryin su rin gcla u se of th e p o li cyon th e E m e ra lda n dth e S a p p h ire ( P ol i cy ) p rov i des t h at FA T T IC shallbe l i able f or “ act u all oss or da m age . . . sust ai n ed or i n curred by [ F i rstA m eri can ] by rea son of ” an y of
n i n et een specif

i cal l y en u m erat ed ri sks. R el evan tto thi s m att er, t h ese “ covered ri sks” i n cl u ded : “ 3. U n m arketabi l i t y of the T i t l e” ; “ 11. T h e fai l u re of t h e I n sured M o r tg a g e to h a v e t h e e q u iv a le n t p r io r ityo f aP r e fe r r e dM o r tg a g e a s d e fin e din 46 U
. S. C. § 3 13 22 ” ; a nd

14. L ack of pri ori t y of t h e M ort gag e i n sured h ereun der o v e ra n ys ta tu to r ylie n fo rN e c e s s a r ie s ( a s th a t t e r m is de f i ne d i n 4 6 U
. S. C. § 3 13 01 o ri t s e quiva l e ntund e rt he l aw of P an am a) p rovi ded to the V essel s p ri or to or af t er t h e D ate of

P ol i cy w h et h er ornot t h e st atutor y l i en f or N ec es sa r i es ar i se s pri ort o o raf t ert he D at e o f

Pol i c y. In t h e even tt h at F irst A m eri can proves t h at itha s s u st ai n ed a covered l os s, Sec t i on 7 o f

t he Pol i c y de t er m i nes th e ex t entof FA TT I C ’ s l i abi l i t y. S e c tio n 7 , “D E T E R M IN A T IO N A N D E X T E N T O F L IA B IL IT Y ,” p r o v id e s , in
r e le v a n t p a r t:N o. 07- 31033

3 Th i s pol i c y i s a contr ac tof i ndem ni t y aga i nstac t ual m o ne t ar y l o s s o rda m ag e s ust ai ne d o ri nc ur r e d b y t he I nsur ed Cl ai m antw ho has s uf fer ed l os s ordam age by r e as o n o f

m at t e r s i ns ur e d agai ns tb y t hi s po l i c y and o n lyto th e e x te n t h e r e in d e s c r ib e d
.

(a ) T h e lia b ilityo f th e C o m p a n yu n d e rth is p o lic ys h a ll n o t e x c e e dth e le a s t o f:

. . . . (i i i) T h e di f

ference betw een t h e val u e of th e T i tl e a s i n su red an dthe va l u e of the T i tl e su bj ect to th e d e fe c t, lie n , o re n c u m b r a n c e in s u r e da g a in s t b yth is p o lic y. . . .

. . . . (c) T h e C om pa n y w i llp ay on l y t h ose c ost s, att orney’ s f

ees and expen ses i n curred i n accor da n ce w i t h Secti on 4 of

t h ese C on di t i on s. U nde rt he Po l i c y, e xc e ptw he n t he l aw of Pana m a o rt he fe de r all aw of t he U ni t ed Stat es m ustbe app l i ed, r es ol ut i on o f any di sput e i s t o b e de t er m i ned by L o u is ia n ala w . I n Augus t2 00 5, Ti t an f i l ed fo rb ank r upt c y i n t he Tam paD ivi s i o n o f t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i c t C our t f or t he M i ddl e D i st r i c t of Fl or i da. At t he t i m e Ti t an f i l ed the proceedi n gs, t h e O cean Jew el , t h e E m eral d, an d the S ap ph i re w ere en cum bered bynecessari es li en s r esul t i n g f rom d e b t s ow ed to sup pl i ers of
ne c e s s ar i e s f

o rt he v e s s e l s . I n J anua r y 20 06 , t he b ank r upt c y c o ur ta ppr o ve d t he
s a le o f th e O c e a n J e w e l. O r ig in a lly , th e S a p p h ir e w a s to b e s o lda t a u c tio n w ith th e O c e a n J e w e l. H ow ever, t h e Sa pp h i re w as del et ed f rom t h e sal e af

t er t h e vesselt ook on w ater a n d s a n k a ther m oori n gs. A f t er t h e Sa pp h i re s an k, t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rt o r d e r e d t h a t t h e c o s t s Ta m p a Ba y S h i p b u i l d i n g a n d Re p a i r Co m p a n y ( TB SR) i n c u r r e d i n k e e p i n g a n d ma i n t a i n i n g t h e S a p p h i r e w e r e “ s u p e r - p r i o r i t y” c l a i ms sup eri or t o an y m ari t i m e l i en on t h e vessel
. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rtN o. 07- 31033

Rob insonv. Orien t Marine Co. Ltd. , 505 F.3d364, 365 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Gowesky 1 v. Singing

River Hosp. Sys
. , 3 2 1 F .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7( 5 thCir
. 2 0 0 3))
. 4 ord ere dtha t T i tan ’ s ab a n d on m en t of the S a p p h i re be a p p rov ed
. S u b seq u en t t o t h e ban kru ptcy court’ s orders, T B S R fil ed an in rem act i on againstt h e Sa pp h i re in th e U n ite dS ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t fo r th e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a . A s are s u lt of t hos e pr oc ee di ngs, U
. S. M ar shal s s ei ze d the Sapph i r e and so l d i tt o TB SR at pu bl i c aucti on f

or $99, 227 , t h e val u e of T B S R ’ s li en s. S i m i l arl y, E aster n S h i pb u i l di n g G roup , I n c. ( E aster n ) f i l ed an i n rem a c t io n a g a in s tth e E m e r a ld . T h e r e s u lto f t h is a c t io n m ir r o r e dth a to f T B S R ’s in re m a c tio n a g a in s t t h e S a p p h ir e — U .S . M a r s h a ls s e iz e dth e E m e r a lda n ds o ld itto E a s t e r n a tp u b li ca u c t io n fo rac r e d itb ido f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , ap o r t io n o f E a s t e r n ’s $ 5 9 7 ,3 5 2 .7 2 n e c e s s a r ie s lie n s . Fi r s tAm e r i c an f

i l ed sui ta f

t e rFAT TI C r e f

us e d t o pa y any t hi ng o n t he Em e r al d or S apphir e abo ve t he a m o unt s pa i d t o TBSR a nd Eas t e r n i n t he f orecl osure sal es. Fir stA m eri can cl ai m ed, i n t er al i a, dam ages f or breach of
c o n tr a c t a n db r e a c h o f th e d u tyo f g o o dfa ith a n dfa ird e a lin g . FA TT IC fi l ed a m ot i on f orpar t i als um m ar y j udgm entr eques t i ng a decl arator yju d gm en tt h at th e m easu re of i n dem n i t y i s li m i t ed u n der S ect i on 7( a) (i i i) of

t h e P ol i cy t o t h e am ou n tby w h i ch the pa ym en t s to th e hol ders of th e prim i n g li en s for n ece ssa ri es red u ced F i rst A m erican ’ s reco ve ry on its
m o r t ga ge s . The di s t r i c tc o ur ta do pt e d FATT I C’ s po s i t i o n a nd a l s o he l d t hatt he Poli c y di d no ta l l o w Fir s tAm e r i c an t o r e c o ve r c o ns e que nt i alda m ag e s . The di st ri ctcourtcer t i f

i ed i t s i n t erl ocutory deci sion fo r app eal , an d thi s c ou rt a cc e p te dj u risd iction p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 9 2 (b ). II T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s a grant orden i alof sum m ary j u dg m en td e nov o, a p p ly in gt h e s a m e s ta n d a r da s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S u m m a r yju d g m e n t is 1 ap pr o pr i at e if

“t he pl e ad i ngs , t he di s c o ve r y anddi s c l o s ur e m at e r i al s o n f i l e , a ndN o. 07- 31033

Fed
. R
. C iv
. P
. 5 6 (c). 2 Rob inson , 505 F.3dat 366 (citing Gowesky , 3 2 1 F .3 d at 5 0 7). 3 Principal Health Careof La., In c . v . Le w e r Agency, I nc. , 38F .3d 2 40, 242(5th Cir. 4 1 9 9 4); Bon in v. West

portI ns. Cor p. , 20 05-0 886 , pp. 4 -5 (La. 5/17/0 6); 9 30 So. 2 d 90 6, 9 10. Principal Health Careof La., Inc. , 38F .3d at 2 42. 5 Bon in , 2 0 0 5 -0 8 8 6 , at pp . 4 -5 ; 9 3 0S o. 2 d at 9 1 0 ; Cole man v. Sch . Bd. of Ri c hla nd 6 Parish , 4 1 8F .3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 6( 5 thCir
. 2 0 0 5). L A . C IV . C O D E ANN . art
. 2 0 4 7 ; Bon in , 2 0 0 5 -0 8 8 6 , at p. 5 ; 9 3 0S o. 2 d at 9 1 0 ; Cole man , 7 418F .3d at 5 16. Cole man , 418 F.3dat 518 (quoting La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. I nterstateF

ire &C as. C o. , 8 9 3 -0 9 1 1 (La . 1 /1 4/9 4);6 3 0S o. 2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4); see a lsoLA . C IV . C O D E ANN . art
. 2 0 4 6
. L A . C IV . C O D E ANN . art
. 2 0 5 0 ; Cole man , 4 1 8F .3 d at 5 1 7
. 9 5 an y af f i da vit s s ho w t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m at e r i alfac ta nd th a t t h e m o v a n t is e n tit le dto ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f l a w .” A n yre a s o n a b le 2 i nfe r e nc e s a re to be d r awn i n fav o ro f t he no n- m o vi ng pa r t y. Bec aus e t he 3 i n t erpret ati on of

an i n suran ce pol i cy i s a q u est i on of l aw , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ct

4 court’ s det erm i n ati on de n ovo. 5 III B y its e x p ress t erm s, FA T T IC ’ s t i t l e pol i cy i s governedby the l aw of L ou i si an a. Lou i si an a l aw provi des t h at an i n suran ce p ol i cy i s a c on t ract betw een t h e parti es and sh ou l d be constr u ed u si n g t h e gen eralrul es of contr act i nt er pre t at i on s etf

or t h i n th e L ou i si ana C ivi lC ode
. The w or ds use d i n an 6 i ns ur anc e po l i c y m us tb e g ive n t he i rg e ne r all y pr e va i l i ng m e a n i n g. “ [W ] he n t he 7

‘ l an gu age of

an insuran ce p ol i cy i s cl ear, cou rt s l ack the au t h orit y t o chan ge or al t eri t s t er m s und ert he gui seof i nt er pre t at i on. ’” Fu r t her , eac h pro vi si on o f an 8 i n suran ce pol i cy “ m u stbe i n t erpret ed i n l i gh t of t h e ot h er provi si on s so t h at each i s given t h e m ean i n g sug gest ed byt h e contr actas a w h ol e. ” I n suran ce pol i ci es 9 “sh ou l dn ot be i n terp reted i n an u n rea son a b l e or stra i n ed m a n n er so a s toN o. 07- 31033

Cole man , 4 1 8F .3 d at 5 1 7 ; Bon in , 2 0 0 5 -0 8 8 6 , at p. 5 ; 9 3 0S o. 2 d at 9 1 0 -1 1 ; see a lso 10 LA . C IV . C O D E ANN . art. 2 049(“A provi sionsuscep tible of differentmeanings must b e int er p r et edw ith a me aningth at renders iteffective and not with oneth at renders it inef fective. ”)
. 1 4 3S o. 4 3(La . 1 9 3 2). 11 6 enl ar ge ort o re st r i c ti t s pr ovi si ons be yond w hati s r eas onably c ont em pl at ed by its te r m s o rs o a s to a c h ie v e a n a b s u r dco n c lu s io n .” 10 As h as b een no t e d, Se c t i o n 7 ( a) (i i i) s t at e s , i n r e l e va ntpa r t , t hatt he

“ l i abili t y of

t h e C om pa n y u n der t h i s pol i cy shal lnot exceed t h e l east o f: . . . (i i i) The dif

fe r e nc e b e t w e e n t he va l ue o f t he Ti t l e as i ns ur e d andt he v al ue o f th e T itle s u bje c t t o th e d e fe c t, lie n , o re n c u m b r a n c e in s u r e da g a in s t b yth is p o li c y .” T h e d is t r ic tc o u r tin t e r p r e t e dth is la n g u a g e t o m e a n th a tFA T T I C ’s lia b ilityis lim ite dto t h e d iffe r e n c e b e tw e e n t h e v a lu e o f F ir s t A m e r ic a n ’ s s h ip
m o r tg a g e s w h e n u n e n c u m b e r e da n dth e v a l u e o f F ir s t A m e r ic a n ’ s s h ip
m ort gag es s u bj ectt o t h e necessari es li en s. B ased on t h i s l an gu age, t h e di st ri ct c our tal sow enton t o s t at e t hat t he B ank’ s r ec ove r y i s l i m i t ed t o the am ountby
w h i ch F i rst A m erican ’ s reco ve ryon i ts m ortg a ge s w a s red u ced b y p a ym en ts t o t h e h o ld e r s o f t h e p r im in gl ie n s fo rn e c e s s a r ie s . W h il e w e a g r e e th a tFA T T I C ’s l i abili t y u n der t h e P ol i cy i s l i m i t ed to t h e di f ference betw een t h e val u e of F i rst A m eri can ’ s sh i p m ort gag es w h en un en cum bered an d the value of F i rst Am e r i c an’ s s hi p m o r t ga ge s s ubj e c t t o t he ne c e s s ar i e s l i e ns , w e di s ag r e e t hatt he dif fe r e nc e i n v al ue s i s t o b e de t e r m i ne d s o l e l y byt he pr o c e e ds r e c o ve r e d f r o m t he fo r e c lo s u r e s a le
. The Loui s i anaSupr e m e Cour t , i n V ol unt e e rSt at eL if

eI nsur anceCo. v. Un i on Ti t le G u aran t ee Co. , h a s p rev i ou sly h eld th a t co u rts m u st t a k e into 11
ac c o unto t he rin f

o r m a ti o n, i n a ddit i o n t o f o r e c l o s ur e s al e pr o c e e ds , w he n v al ui ng a pr o pe r t y f

o r t i t l e - i ns ur anc e pur po s e s . I n V o lu n tee r S ta te L ife , a t i t l e i n surerN o. 07- 31033

Id . at43
. 12 Id
. 13 Id
. 14 Id
. 15 Id
. 16 Id
. at 4 4
. 17 7 i n sured the plai n t i f f ’ s $10, 000 m ort gag e on a cert a in p ro p ert y. H ow ever, 12 nei t herpar t y had know l edge of a pr evi ou sly r ec or ded $17 , 500 m or t gage by a t hi r d par t y, Sout her n C as ual t y Com pany ( SC C )
. Af t erSC C f

or ec l os ed by 13 executory proceedi n gs, the sheri f f sol d t h e m ort gag ed p ropert y at pub l i c aucti on f o r$ 2, 50 0 t o t he r e c e ive r s f o rSCC

— “ t hati s , fo r$15 , 00 0 l e s s t han t he a m o unt du e t o t h e com pa n y. ” T h e pl ai n t i f f t h en brou gh t sui t aga i n stt h e t i t l e i n surer 14 f or $10, 000
. A l t h ou gh adm i t t i n g l i abili t y f or $2, 500 , t h e defen da n tcontended 15 th a t “th e on l y criteri on of th e v a l u e of the pr op erty , or t h e am ou n t of the secu ri ty
w hi c h t he pl ai nt i f

f had l o s t , w as t he pr i c e fo rw hi c h t he pr o pe r t y w as s o l d b y t he
s he r i f f a tpub l i cauc t i o n. ” The Lou i s i anaSupr e m e Cour tdi s ag r e e d, c o nc l udi ng 16 t hatt he fo r e c l o s ur e auc t i o n pr i c e “ w as nott he only c r i t e r i o n of t he val ue o f

t he p r o p e r ty , o ro f th e a m o u n t o f th e s e c u r ityw h ic h th e p la in tiff lo s t.” 17 Bas e d o n V

o lu n tee r S ta te L ife , t he di s t r i c tco ur ter r o ne o us l y c o nf i ne d t he l oss i n v al u e su f

fered by F i rstA m eri can sol el y t o t h e am ou n t s bi d at f orecl osure sa l e of the tw o ca tam a ra n s. Inste a d , the f i n d er-of- fact m u s t tak e into
c o n s id e r a tio n a ll o th e rre le v a n t in fo r m a tio n w h e n v a l u in glo s s u n d e ratit le i n suran ce pol i cy. A ccor di n gl y, w e hol d that a deter m i n ati on of t h e val u e of

F i rst A m eri can ’ s un en cum bered sh i p m ort gag es and t h e val u e of t h e m ortgages sub j ectt o the n ecess ari es l i en s rai ses gen u i n e is sues of m ater i alfactbased u pon a n ya p p r a is a ls , th e fo r e c lo s u r e p r o c e e d s , a n do th e rm a r k e t d a ta
. In lig h t o f th is ho l di ng, w e al s o re m andfo rt he det e r m i nat i o n of t he pr o pe rdat e o f

v al uat i o n.N o. 07- 31033

L A . C IV . C O D E ANN . art
. 2 0 4 7 ; Bon in v. West portI ns. Cor p. , 20 05-0 886 , p. 4 -5 (La. 18 5/1 7/0 6); 9 3 0S o. 2 d 9 0 6 , 9 1 0 ; Cole man v. Sch
. Bd. of Richland Parish , 41 8 F .3d 5 11, 516(5th C ir
. 2 0 0 5).

See, e.g. , Campbe ll v. Markel Am. Ins. C o. , 20 0 0 -1 4 4 8 , p. 1 1 (L a . App . 1 C ir
. 9/2 1 /0 1 ); 19 8 2 2S o. 2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 4 ; McGuire v. Davis Truck Servs ., I nc. , 51 8 S o. 2 d 11 71, 117 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1 9 8 8). B LACK ’ S LA W D I CTI O NARY9 6 3(8the d. 2 0 0 4).

20 Id
. at 4 1 6
. 21 8 IV T h e d i st ri ctcou rta l so ru l ed t h at the P ol i cy d i d n ota l l ow f or t h e rec overy o f c o n s e q u e n tia l d a m a g e s . W e a g r e e . T h e P ol i cy b egi n s by st ati n g t h at FA T T IC i n sures “ aga i n stact u all oss or da m age. ” Sect i on 7 a l so r ei t erat es t h at th e parti es enter ed i n t o a “ contractof i n dem n i t y aga i n sta ct u alm on et ary l oss or dam age. ” W h i l e t h e P ol i cy provi des for som e rec ov eryoth er t h a n “actu a l l oss or da m a ge , ” i t l i m i ts su ch pa ym en ts t o c o s t s , a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s , a nd e xp e ns e s i nc ur r e d i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h de fe ndi ng and prose c ut i ng a c l ai m a dv e r s e t o t he i ns ur e d. The Po l i c y do e s no tm en t i on c o n s e q u e n tia l d a m a g e s . U n der L ou i si an a l aw , t h e w ords used i n an i n suran ce pol i cy m u stbe given t he i rg e ne r ally pr e va i l i ng m e ani ng. To d e t e r m i ne t he g e ne r all y pr e va i l i ng 18
m ean i n g i n an i n suran ce c on t ra ct, L o u i si an a courts of t en res ortt o t h e use of B lack’ s L aw D i ct i on ary . A ccor di n g t o B la c k ’s , “ ac t ual l o s s ” i s “ [ a] l o s s r e s ul t i ng 19 fr o m th e r e a l a n d s u b s ta n tia l d e s tr u c tio n o f in s u r e dp r o p e r ty .” B lack’ s m ak es 20
r e fe r e nc e t o “ ac t uall o s s ” w he n itd e f i ne s “ ac t ualda m ag e s ” a s “ [ a] n a m o unt a w a rd e d to a com pl ai n an tt o com pen sate f or a proven i nj u ry or l oss; dam ages th a t rep a y a ctu a ll oss es.” In co n tr a s t, B lack’ s sep a ra tel y d efi n es “con seq u en ti al 21 l os s”as “ [ a] l os s ar i si ng f r om the r es ul t s of

dam age r at hert han f r om t he dam ageN o. 07- 31033

Id
. at 9 6 4
. 22 Id
. at 4 1 6
. 23 9 i t s e l f, ” a nd n o t e s t hati ti s “ [ a] l s o t e r m e d i n d i rec tloss ; c o n s e q ue nt i al i n j u ry .” 22 A ccor di n g t o B la c k ’s , “ consequ en t i aldam ages” entail“ [l] osses t h at do not f l ow d ire ctlya n d i m m edi ately f rom an i nj u ri ou s actbu tt h at r esul ti n di rect l y f rom t he a c t
. ” A pl ai n r e ad i ng o f “ ac t u allos s or dam ag e ” do e s no ti nc l ude 23 “con seq u en ti a ll oss ” or “con seq u en ti a lda m a ge . ” T h e pl ai n l an gu age of t h e P o li cyal l ow s f or r ecovery of

“ act u all oss or da m age” and not c on sequ en t i al da m ages. T h eref ore, w e concl u de t h at t h e P ol i cy d o e s n o t a llo w fo rth e re c o v e r yo f c o n s e q u e n tia l d a m a g e s . * * * W e h o ldth a tt h e d e te r m in a tio n o f th e v a lu e o f F ir s t A m e r ic a n ’ s s h ip
m o r t ga ge s unenc um be r e d and s ubj e c tt o t he ne c e s s ar i e s l i e ns i nvo lve s g e nui ne i ssu es o f m a terialfa ct. W e a l so h old th a t F i rst A m erican i s n ot en titled to
con seq u en ti a lda m a ge s. A ccord i n gly, w e A F F IR M i n pa rt, R E V E R S E i n pa rt, a n dR E M A N D fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s .