FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 28 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1239 8
D. C. Docket N o. 04-00008 CV -D HB- 1 FIRS T UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (J un e 28, 200 6) Before AN DE RSO N and DU BIN A, Circuit Judges, and AL BRIT TO N*, District Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble Will iam H. Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation.A truss is a triang le composed of members that support the r oof. A truss consists of top cor d 1 members, whic h are the sloping members, bottom cor d members, a nd diag onal member s within the truss. Spe c if

ic a lly , th e po lic y ’s e xclu sio n p ro vid e s in pa rt , 2 We will not pay

for loss or damag e ca

used b y o r re s u l t i ngfrom any of the following , 3.a. 2 Appellant, GuideOne Specia lity Mutual Insurance Com

pany (“ GuideO ne”), ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ina l j udgm en t f

oll ow ing the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t aw ar din g dam ages to First United Pe ntecostal Church (“ Church”) on its breach of c ontract cl ai m . G uid eO ne f

urthe r ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing it s M oti on f or Judg m en t a s aMa tte r of

L awa s to the Chur ch ’ s c la im f or ba d f ai th d am ag es . F or th e rea so ns di sc us se d b el ow, we af fir m . I. F AC TS During the relevant tim e period at issue in this case, the Church wa s insu red by G uid eO ne a ga ins t pr ope rty da m ag e. I n N ove m

be r 2002 , the Chur chf

ile d a cl ai m w ithG uid eO ne f

or da m ag e to i ts r oof

, w hic h in cl ude d c ra ck s inthe r oof de ck ing that ha d pi er ce d th e ro of a nd c ra ck s inthe m em

be rs , or be am s, of

one of the tr uss es sup portin g th e ro of
. R el y ing on i ts e ngi ne er ’ s e xpe rt ’ s r ep ort op ini ng 1 that the trusses were dam aged and repaire d m ore than thirteen y ears a go, and that
w ind did not c au se or w or se n th e ro of

’ s c ondi tio n, G uid eO ne de nie d c ove ra ge to t h e C h u rc h ci t i n g i t s ex cl u s i o n fo r “fau l t y re p ai rs .” Un s at i s fi ed wi t h Gu i d eO n e’s 2throug h 3.c. B ut if an excluded ca use of loss that is listed in 3.a. throug h 3.c. re sul ts in a Cov e re d Ca

us e of L os s, we wi ll pay

fo r t he los s o r d ama g e c a

us e d b y that Co ve re d Ca

us e of L os s.

. . . [3]c . F a ult y , in a de qu ate or

de fe c tiv e :

. . . De s i gn , s p ec i fi ca t i o n , wo rk m an s h i p , re p ai r, co n s tru ct i o n , re n o v at i o n , re m o d el i n g, gra d i n g, compac tion . . . . ( R. V o l. 1 , Ct
. E x. 1 at 3
- 4 )
. A c o v e r e d “ Ca u s e o f L o s s ” in c lu d e s “ w in d s to r m. ” ( R. V o l. 1 , Ct
. E x. 1 at 8). The policy

cover ed “da

mag e . . . cause d by collapse of a building
. . if the collapse is ca used 3 by
. . . [h]id de n d e c ay

. . . . ” (R . V ol. 1, Ct. Ex. 1 at 7) . F ur the r, a s n ote d a

bo ve , a c ov e re d “ Ca

us e of L oss” includes damag e ca used by wind. (R. Vol. 1, Ct. Ex . 1 at 8).

3 co nc lus ion s, the Chur chr et ai ne d it s ow n e ngi ne er . I ts e ngi ne er c onc lud ed

that a
co m bin at ionof

hi dde n de cay

a nd w ind , w hic h w er e co ve re d lo sse s un de r the pol ic y , c au se d th e be am s to c ra ck in the r oof

. T he Chur chthe n se nt a de m an d 3 letter w ith an attached list of dam ages, a sserting addit ional “ secondary water dam age due to vandalism of the church during which relay or other elec trical
com ponent of the air c ondi tioner was stolen while the c hurch was unoccupied that resulted in additi onal m oistu re and m ildew dam age to the basem ent.” D ur ing thi s ti m e G uid eO ne a lso obt ai ne d w ea the r re ports f or the pe ri od o f tim e in whic h th e Chur chini tia lly c la im ed the da m ag e oc curr ed , N ove m be r 2002 ,Gu ide On e re lie d, in p art , o n the No ve mbe r 20 02 we athe r re po rt s to de ny the Chu rc h’ s c la im 4 un t i l th e C hurc h , af

t er fi l i n g s u i t an d d

uri n g th e di s co v ery i nth i s l i t i gat i o n , as s ert edth atth e d am age was c aused by

a windstorm in May

2002. 4 w hic h r ep orte d m ax im

um w ind s of 10 m ph i n th e ar ea . C onse que ntl y , G uid eO ne 4 ag ai n de nie d c ove ra ge f

or the da m ag e to the r oof

, and a sse rt ed

that the da m ag e to the basem ent was a

separate claim

that wa s additio nally

denied because the direct phy sical dam age w as the cost of the replace m ent of the fuses, which was less than the $25 0 de duc tib le und er the pol ic y ’ s pr ovi sio n f

or los s by the ft
. The C hurch filed suit against GuideO ne for bre ach of the insurance
co ntr ac t. T he Chur chsou ght da m ag es f

or c onstru ct iona nd r ep ai r ex pe nse s to the
ro of a nd b as em en t. B ec au se the Chur chw as a dvi se d th at it w as uns af

e to c ont inu e to o cc upy the bui ldi ng a s r es ult

of the da m ag e to the r oof

, it m ove d it s se rv ic es to the ne ar by A sse m bly of G od c hur ch , a nd thus soug ht d am ag es f or paym en ts m ad e to the A sse m

bly of G od c hur chf

or use of it s sanc tuary , a nd r ed

uc tio n inof

fe ri ngs it claim ed we re c ausally

relate d to its d isplacem ent. A dditi onally , the C hurch cl ai m ed that G uid eO ne de nie d it s c la im s inba d f ai th and s ough t ba d f

ai th pe na lt ie s an d a tt or ne y s’ fees pu rs ua nt to O.C.G.A. § 33 -4 -6
. T he tr ia l w as bif

ur ca te d in to a

li ab ili ty pha se f or br ea chof

c ontra ct a nd a ba d f ai th p ha se . O ve r the obj ec tio n of G uid eO ne , the dis tr ic t c ourt pe rm itt ed the Church’ s expert to testify based on his experience that the dam age to the roof w as5

the result of a com

binatio n of hidden decay and wind. The j ury

returned a ver dict in f av or of the Chur chin the li ab ili ty pha se , f ind ing that the da m ag e to the r oof
wa s caused in part by

a w indst orm

or hidden decay , and thu s was c overed under the pol ic y . T he j ur

y a w ar de d th e en tir e am ount of da m ag es the Chur chr eque ste d, inc lud ing $14 8, 518. 60 f

or c onstru ct iona nd r ep ai r ex pe nse s to the r oof a nd ba se m en t, $28 , 600. 00 f

or paym en ts m ad e to A sse m bly of G od d es ign at ed

a s “ re nt pa ym en ts, ” $38, 686. 00 f

or los s of fe ri ng r ev enue , $3, 458. 07 f or sto ra ge c ost s, a nd $6, 031. 19 f

or int er es t and f

ee s onaloan. In the second phase of the trial, specif ically before any

evidence w as pr es en te d, G uid eO ne m ove d f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawa s to the ba d f

ai th claim arguing that there wa s insu fficient evidence that its denial wa s m ade in bad fa ith
. R el y ing on the 200 1 a m en dm en t t o O
. C. G
. A
. § 33 -4 -6 , pr ovi din g th at “ the testim ony or opinio n of an expert w itness [shall no t] be the sole basis for summ ary j udgm ent or a direc ted verdict on the issu e of bad fa ith,” the district court denied G uid eO ne ’ s m oti on. A ft er the c los e of

a ll ev ide nc e, G uid eO ne a ga in m ove d f or j udgm ent as a m atter of law, which again w as denied. A ccordingly , the c laim wa s sent to the jury

wher e it aw arded the Church $75,000 and autho rized the district
co ur t t o a wardatt or ne y s’ fees an d e xp en se s.Upon direc tion of the district court, the Churc h ag ree d to eliminate the jury ’s awa rd for 5 interest and loa

n fee s and re duce t h e aw ar d for loss offeringto comply with the policy ’s $50,000 lim it. 6 In acc ordance w ith the jury ’ s finding s, the district court entere d final j udgm en t aw ar din g $1 98, 518. 60 i n dam ag es to the Chur chon i ts b re ac h of
co ntr ac t c la im
. A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d $7 5, 000 on the ba d f ai th 5 cl ai m a nd $ 55, 761. 64 f

or a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and e xpe nse s. G uid eO ne appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ina l j udgm en t, a rg uin g th at the da m ag es a w ar de d f

or c onstru ct ion
an d r ep ai rs e xpe nse s, r en t, a nd l oss of fe ri ngs re ve nue w er e not

sup porte d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce . G uid eo ne f urthe r ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of it s
m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. II. ISS UES 1. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in re ly ing on the 200 1 a m en dm en t t o O
. C. G
. A
. § 33 -4 -6 to fi nd tha t the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

ba d f ai th f or the cl ai m to go to th e jury. 2 . Wh et h ert h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ab u s ed i t s d i s cr et i o n b y ad m i t t i n g t h e C h u rc h ’s
ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y . 3. Whe the r the a w ar d of

da m ag es f

or paym en ts m ad e to A sse m bly of G od, los s of fe ri ng r ev enue , a nd c onstru ct iona nd r ep ai r ex pe nse s f or the r oof a nd ba se m en t wer e su pp or te d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce.The Churc h’s contention that GuideOne is improperly appea ling the district c ourt’s denia l 6 of its mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a s to the ba d fa ith c la im is wi tho ut me ri t. Th is c ourt ha s h e ld that it will not revie w the pre trial denial of summar y judgme nt after

a full trial and f

inal judgme nt 7 III. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW A de nia l of

am oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawis re vie w ed de novo
. Co m bs v

. P lan tat ion P att erns , 106 F.3d 151 9, 1526 (11th Cir. 1997 ). “ W e re view fo r ab use of

dis cr et ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio ns r eg ar din g th e adm iss ibi lity of expert testim ony

and the reliability

of an expert opinion.” United States v. F razier , 387 F. 3d 1 244, 125 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( enbanc ). “ Inc onsi de ri ng the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce that su

ppor ts the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, w e re vie wthe e vid en ce ‘ in the li ght
m ost f av or ab le to, a nd w itha ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s dr awn inf

av or of , the
nonm ovin g party .’ ” M

ont gom er y v. No ga , 168 F
. 3d 1 282, 128 9 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9) (quot ing W

alker v. Na ti on sBa nk

of Fla ., N.A. , 53 F. 3d 15 48, 1555 (11t h Cir. 1995 )). IV. D ISCU SSION A. Ju dgm en t as a M

att er of La w G uid eO ne appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of it s M oti on f

or Jud gm en t a s a Ma tte r of L aw , a rg uin g th at

dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in re ly ing on the 200 1 a m en dm en t to Georgia’ s bad faith penalty statute, O .C. G. A. § 33-4-6, to find that there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

ba d f ai th f or the c la im to go t o th e j ur

y . G eo rg ia ’ s ba d f

ai th 6on the merits. See Lind v. United Parcel Se rv., Inc
. , 254 F.3d 12 8 1 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1th Cir. 2001).

Ho w e v e r , G u i d e O n e d o e s n o ta p p e a l th e d i s tr i c tc o urt ’ s o r d e r d e n yi n gs u m m ar

y j u d g m e n ti ni ts fa vo r; rathe r, it a sse rt s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt re lie d o n th e same e rr on e ou s r e a so nin gto d e ny its summa ry jud g me nt m oti on a s it

us e d to de ny

its mot ion

fo r j ud g me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. I t is c le arl y not a ppealing the district c ourt’s order denying summary judgme nt, but rathe r appea ling the district court’s de nial of its motion for judgment a s a matter of law. 8 penalty statute provid es that bad faith penalties m ay be aw arded w hen the insu rer
r e f u s e s i n b a df

a i t h t o p a y al o s s wh i c h i s c o v e r e du n d e r t h e p o l i c y wi t h i n 6 0 d a ys after a dem and has been m ade. O. C.G .A . § 33-4-6. In 2001, the statute was
am en de d to pr ovi de that, “ [t ] he a ct ionf or ba d f ai th s ha ll not

be aba te d by

paym en t af te r the 60 d ay

pe ri od nor shal l the testi m onyor o pin ion of an e

xp er t w itn es s be the sol e basi

s fo r a s um m aryjud

gm en t or dir ec te d v erdic t on the iss ue of bad fai th .” Id

. ( em pha sis a dde d)
. G uid eO ne a rg ue s th at the 200 1 a m en dm en t di d no t pr ec lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt f ro m gr an tin g j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawin its f

av or be ca use it did not r el y sol el y on i ts e xpe rt ’ s te sti m ony to ar gue that i ts r ea sons f or de nyin g t he Ch ur ch ’s cla im were re as on ab le
. Af ter carefully

review ing th e re cord, w e conclude that GuideOne m ade a Motion for Judgm ent as a Matter of L awpre-ver dict, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P
. 50(a); however , it f

ailed to renewits m otion postv erdict or f ile a m otion for new trial pursuant to Rule 50 (b). Bec ause GuideO ne failed to renewits m otion or file a post-trial m otion for newtrial, we are precluded from entering j udgm ent as m atter of lawin G uid eO ne ’ s f

av or or gr an tin g it

ane wtr ia l ba se d onthe suf fi ci en cy of the9

ev id en ce. See U

nitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Ec krich, I nc. , 126 S
. Ct
. 980 (2 006) ; HI

Lim ited P’

ship v. W ingh ouse of Fla., Inc. , N o. 05- 1007 4, __ F
. 3d _

_ (1 1thCi r. Jun e 15, 200 6) ; F raz ie r v . T

hom as , N o. 05- 1548 9, 200 6 W L 104 9407 (1 1thCi r. Apr il 21, 200 6) ( unpu bli she d) ; M

cD onal d v

. A lpe n H

ouse L td. , N o. 05- 1 5 9 0 4 , 2 0 0 6 WL 1 6 2 7 1 1 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r . J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( u np ub l i s h e d )
. A s t h e S up r e me Co urt i n U

nit he rm explained, the pr ev er dic t m oti on c an not f orm the ba sis of

[ the appe llant] ’ s a

ppe al be ca

use the de nia l of

that m oti on w as not

in er ro r. I t w as m er el y

a n e xe rc ise of

the [d ] istri ct [ c] ourt’ s di sc re tio n, in ac co rd an ce w iththe te xt o f the Ru le a nd the ac ce pte d pr ac tic e of

pe rm itt ing the j ur

y to m ak e anini tia l j udgm en t a bout the sufficiency

of the evidence. 126 S. Ct. at 988-89. T he Court em phasized the necessity

of filing a postverdict
m otion , holding th at the “ [d] eterm ination of w hether a newtrial should be granted
or j udgm en t e nte re d un de r Ru le 50( b) c al ls f or the j udgm en t i n th e fi rs t i nst an ce of the j udge w ho s awa nd h eard the w itn es s and h as the f ee l of the c as e w hic h no appellate printed transcript can im part.” Id

. at 9 85 -8 6 (c it at io n o m it te d)
. W e m ust a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r due to co unse l’ s f ai lur e to r en ewit s
m otion postv erdict or f

ile a post-trial m otion for newtrial pursuant to Rule 50(b). B. Dam ages G uid eO ne e sse nti al ly

c ha lle nge s th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of da m ag es f

or los s of fe ri ngs re ve nue , paym en ts m ad e to10

Ass em bl y of Go d, an d c on st ru ct io n a nd rep ai r ex pe ns es forth e ro of an d b as em en t. Specifica lly , GuideOne ar gues that the dam ages for loss offer ings revenue were spe cu la tiv e be ca

use the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce that the r ed uc tio n inof

fe ri ngs
wa s causally

relate d to the Church’ s disp lacem ent. GuideOne further argues that sufficient evidence w as presented that paym ents m ade to Assem bly of G od were volu ntary , and thu s not recoverable under G eorgia law
. Finally , GuideOne ar gues that the entire aw ard for repair and const ruction expenses sh ould be rever sed be ca use the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or the j ur y to al loc at e the c onstru ct iona nd
re pa ir e xpe nse s be tw ee n th ose f or the r oof a nd those f

or the ba se m en t. G uid eO ne
co nte nds tha t this w as e rr or be ca use the j ur

y c oul d have f

ound that the da m ag e to th e b as em en t was no t co ve redun de r th e p ol ic y . Af ter careful r eview of

the rec ord, w e hold that th e Church presented sufficient evidence to supp ort the district court’ s award of dam ages. The C hurch presented sufficient evidence at tria l that the loss in offerings wa s causally relate d t o i t s d i s p l ac emen t . F u rt h er , t h e e v i d en ce p re s en t ed at t ri al s up p o rt ed t h e ju ry’s
co nc lus ion s th at

the paym en ts t o A sse m

bly of G od w er e ne ce ssary , a nd thus
re co ve ra ble
. F ina lly , the j ur

y w as pr es en te d w ithsuf

fi ci en t e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h it
co uld ha ve a llo ca te d th e re pa ir a nd c onstru ct ione xpe nse s be tw ee n th e ro of a nd the ba se m en t.The Churc h contends that Guide One f ailed to prope rly prese rve its objection to the expert’s 7 testimony
. After revie wing the rec ord, we conclude that GuideOne timely objected to the e x pert’s t e s t i m o n y, an d

th atth e d i s tr i c tc o urtc l e ar l y r u l e d atth att i m e th ati tw o u l d a l l o ws u c ht e s t i m o n y. Acc ording ly , GuideOne did not waive it s objection when it failed to rene w i ts objection when the expert continued testifying afte r the district c ourt’s ruling
. See Fe d. R. Evid. 103(a) ( providing that
“ [o]nc e the c ourt

make s a de fi nit ive ru lin gon

the re c or d a dmi tti ngor

e xclu din ge vid e nc e . . . a

pa rt y need not r enew

an objec tion . . . to preserve a cla im of err or for appea l.”). 11 C. A dm ittanc e of E

xp er t T es tim ony L as tly , G uid eO ne a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by fa ili ng t o pe rf

orm it s ga te -k ee pin g r ole a s r equir ed und er F ed
. R. E vid
. 702 w he n it al low ed the Chur ch ’ s e xpe rt

to te sti fy a s to the c au se of

the r oof da m ag e ba se d on his experience alone. “ It is very m uch a m atter of discre tion with the trial court 7
w he the r to p er

m it the intro duc tio n of

[ ex pe rt ] e vid en ce , a nd w e w ill not r ev er se the decision of the trial court regarding the exclusion or adm issio n of such evidence unless th e trial c ourt’ s decision is ‘ m anifestly err oneous .’ ” M

ic higan M

ill er s M ut. In s. Co rp. v . B en

fie ld , 140 F. 3d 91 5, 921 (11th Cir. 1998). A fter thorough review
o f t h e r ec o rd , we co n cl u d e t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n t o ad m i tt h e C h u rc h ’s expert testim ony

wa s not “ m anifestly

err oneous .” V. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s f ina l j udgm en t
en te re d onthe j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t. AFFIR MED.