[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 11 60 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 20 07 -MEF JOHNNY HARMON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COM PANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st29 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, EDMONDSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t Al ls ta te Pro pe rty andCas ua lt y Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny Case: 11-11604 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 1 of 5(“ All st at e”) app eal s the tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f it s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r

of law o r, in th e al te rn at iv e m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af

firm . All st at e is su eda ho m eo wne r’s po li cy to Jo hn ny Harm on with adwel li ng li mitof $ 25 2,0 00 . W

he n the ho us e ex pe rie nc eda fi re caus in g s ev ere p ro pe rty da m ag e, Harm on so ug htto reco ve r fro m All st at e fo r th e p ro pe rty dam ag e cau se d by the fir e. Whe n Al ls ta te refu se d t o p ay , Harm on bro ug htsu itto reco ve r in su ran ce p ro ceed s fo r da m ag es to hi s h ou se an d i ts co nt en ts . Harm on cla im edhi s ho us e was en ti rel y

de st ro y edan d s ou gh t t o c ol le ctth e p ol ic y li mit s. * The jury he ardev id en ce fr om Harm on an d abu il de r cal le d a s an ex pe rt witne ss th atth e h ou se was fu ll y de st ro y edan d u nr ep ai rab le . The ap pl ic at io n fo r th e p ol ic y was i ntro du ced ; i t s etou t $ 22 2,5 64 as t he rep la cem en t co stof t he dwe ll in g; $3 17 ,00 0 a s t he curren t m ark etva lu e; $2 42 ,00 0 a s the pu rch as e p ric e;
an d 2 ,90 0 s qu are f

eetas t he gro un d fl oo r squa re fo ot ag e. Als o i nt ro du cedwas t he pr oo f of lo ss ; i t s ta te d t ha t the actua l ca sh va lu e an d am ou ntof l os s fo r th e dwe ll in g was $2 52 ,00 0, wh ic h wo ul d m eanth atth e v al ue of the dwel li ng aft er the

Georg ia’s Va lued Policy

Statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5, pr ovides that when a residential * building is wholly

destroyed by

fire, theamount of insuranc e set out in the policy is conclusive, except for deprec iation. I f Ha rmon’s house wa s wholly destroyed, this section would entitle him to the full amount of the policy limit s: $252,000.

2 Case: 11-11604 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 2 of 5lo ss was $ 0.0 0. An d t he jury was sh own m an y ph ot og rap hs of t he dwel li ng aft er th e fi re. Oth er wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t ha t p art s o f th e h ou se were s al va ge ab le ; b utno te st im on y was i ntro du cedde ta il in g h ow m uc h i t wo ul d c os t t o re pa ir the ho us e. Andno tes ti m on y

was i nt ro du cedab ou t the di m in ut io n i n v al ue of t he ho us e as a
res ul t o f th e fi re. Inres po ns e to sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s, the jury fo un d t ha t the ho us e was no t who ll y de st ro y ed . The jury

award ed$1 30 ,00 0 fo r da m ag e to th e stru ctur e an d $1 8,4 00 forco nt en ts lo stan d a dd it io na l l iv in g e xp en se s i nc urred . Alls ta te ch al le ng es on ly the awardforda m ag e to th e st ru ctur e. All st at e co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itde ni edAll st at e’s
m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o r, in th e al te rn at iv e m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Acco rd in g t o Al ls ta te , Harm onpro ffer edin su ffi ci en t ev id en ce attri al up on whi ch th e jury cou ldcal cu la te da m ag es ; an d b ecau se of t hi s i ns uf fic ie nc y , th e jury
ve rd ic t m us t b e th e p ro du ctof s pe cu la ti on , con jectu re o r gu es swo rk
. InGeor gi a, “ [i]t i s ax io m at ic th atda m ag es can no t b e le ft t o s pe cu la ti on , co njec tu re, o r gu es s- work a ndm us t b e p ro ve n wi threas on ab le cert ai nty .” Krog er Co . v. U.S. Fo od se rv ic e o f Atl an ta , Inc ., 60 7 S .E.2d17 7, 1 81 (Ga. App . 20 04 ). Onc e th e jury rejecte d Harm on ’s con te nt io n t ha t the dwel li ng was wh ol ly
3 Case: 11-11604 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 3 of 5de st ro y ed , th e ev id en ce p ro vi de d t he jury with s om e b as is forcal cu la ti ng

da m ag es ; the ev id en ce was les s tha n n eces sa ry to all ow the jury to fig ur e d am ag es with e xa ctpre ci si on . Butex actpre ci si on is no t re qu ire d.

Inev al ua ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of e vi de nc e reg ard in g da m ag es , th e ab il it y

to est im at e d am ag es to a reas on ab le cert ai nt y is all th atis requi redan d m ere d iff ic ul ty fixi ng th e ex actam ou ntwil l n otbe anob st acl e to th e award
. The rul e ag ai ns t the reco ve ry of v ag ue , sp ecu la ti ve , or un cert ai n d am ag es rel at es m or e es pe ci al ly to the un cert ai nt y

as t o c au se , rathe r th anun cert ai nt y as t o t he m eas ur e o f ex te ntof d am ag es . McC an no n v . McCa nn on , 49 9 S .E.2d68 4, 6 86 (Ga. App . 19 98 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . And , “ [t]he qu es ti on of d am ag es be in g o ne for th e jury, a revi ewin g c ou rt s ho ul d n otin te rfer e unl es s the dam ag es are ei th er s o
sm al l o r so ex ces si ve as t o ju st ify the in fere nc e o f gr os s m is ta ke or u ndue bi as .” O.C.G.A. § 13 -6 -4
. Inth e li gh t o f th e d at a inth e ap pl ic at io n fo r in su ran ce an d t he pro of of l os s st at em en t, t og ethe r wit h t he ph ot og rap hs th atall owe d t he jury to form th ei r own op in io n abo utdam ag es , see Ogl etho rp e Rea lt y Co m pa ny, Inc. v . Hazzar d, 3 21 S.E.2d82 0, 8 22 (Ga. App . 19 84 ), an d o th er t es ti m on y at t ria l, s uf

fic ie ntreco rd
ev id en ce s up po rts th e jury’ s v erd ic t. The am ou ntaward edfel l co m fo rtabl y withi n th e ran ge of a m ou nt s s up po rte d b y th e ev id en ce.

4 Case: 11-11604 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 4 of 5All st at e fai ls to sh ow tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in it s de ni al of Al ls ta te ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of law o r, in th e al te rn at iv e,
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. AFFIR MED.

5 Case: 11-11604 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 5 of 5