Opinion ID: 548798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competent Evidence of Damages.

Text: 15 In this diversity case, the determination of damages constitutes a substantive issue. Complete Concepts, Ltd. v. General Handbag Corp., 880 F.2d 382, 389 (11th Cir.1989); McDermott v. Middle East Carpet Co., 811 F.2d 1422, 1426 (11th Cir.1987). Thus, our inquiry, in light of the standard of review set forth above, is whether, as a matter of Florida law (which controls the substantive claims in this case), the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Allstate supports the award of damages in its favor. See Complete Concepts, 880 F.2d at 389. 16 Jaguar argues that at trial, Allstate relied entirely upon testimony of its adjuster Nedelman to establish its claim for damages, and that therefore Allstate's evidence on the damages claim was wholly insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury's verdict. Jaguar premises its argument on Port Everglades Auth. v. R.S.C. Industries, 351 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), a case it views as directly on point and controlling on this issue. 17 In Port Everglades, a property lessor brought an indemnification action on behalf of its fire insurance carriers to recover monies from a tortfeasor that had been paid by the insurers in compensation for a fire loss. 5 At trial, the only evidence offered concerning damages was testimony as to the total payments that the carriers had distributed to the insured. 6 In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the action, the reviewing court reasoned that simply because a contractual provision gives an insurer a right of recovery against a third party does not mean that the insurer has carte blanche to recover any sum which suits its fancy. Id. at 1150. Rather, the recovery must be reasonable, based upon the accepted measure of damages. Id. Because the appellant failed to prove that the amount it received from its carriers was reasonable, the trial judge's dismissal of the case was proper. Id. 18 In this case, Jaguar argues in a similar vein that Allstate failed to present any evidence concerning the reasonableness of the amount paid to the Hessens, or any method by which the damages could be appropriately calculated, other than the naked assertion of Allstate's adjuster as to the amount paid on the Hessen claim. Initial Brief of Appellant at 32. We disagree. 19 This case is factually distinguishable from Port Everglades. Here, the jury was not simply confronted with a bald numerical figure. It considered testimony regarding the assessment of the damages claim, 7 as well as testimony regarding the actual damages to the subrogors' home and its contents. 8 Allstate also introduced photographs of the home that outlined the extent of the fire damage (R7-47-48, 86). Most important, the jury considered the figure given by adjuster Nedelman, characterized by counsel as the total amount of money spent by Allstate to make Mr. Hessen whole (R8-110), in light of Hessen's testimony that, notwithstanding the considerable negotiations between Allstate and Hessen regarding items covered, Allstate was right regarding the items of damage for which they paid. Hessen testified that he felt that he had been treated ... fairly by the insurance company with regard to the monies offered him in compensation for his loss. (R7-52). 20 This court has recognized on several occasions that in Florida, an owner of property is qualified to testify as to its value for purposes of supporting a damages award. Gregg, 887 F.2d at 1469; Electro Servs., Inc. v. Exide Corp., 847 F.2d 1524, 1526 (11th Cir.1988); Neff v. Kehoe, 708 F.2d 639, 644 (11th Cir.1983); see Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. Levine, 523 So.2d 629, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hill v. Marion County, 238 So.2d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). This in effect is what Arnold Hessen did in confirming that all in all, he felt that he had been treated fairly with regard to the procedures and compensation provided him by Allstate in valuing the various elements of his fire loss--a valuation subsequently given concrete form by adjuster Nedelman in reciting Allstate's total payout to Hessen. 9 This valuation was freely open to attack by Jaguar through cross-examination and the submission of independent evidence refuting its accuracy. See Neff, 708 F.2d at 644. 21 In sum, the evidence regarding the physical property damage sustained and Allstate's extensive claims procedures in seeking to calculate that damage, as well as Arnold Hessen's direct testimony acknowledging fair treatment after Allstate reached a final figure, offered in addition to the total amount paid, provided the jury with a sufficient basis to reach an accurate determination as to the reasonableness of the payment made by Allstate to the insureds as compensation for their loss. The jury, in accordance with its fact-finding function, apparently determined this interplay of damages evidence to be for the most part credible. 10 We therefore refuse to overturn the district court's refusal to grant judgment n.o.v. on this ground. 22