Opinion ID: 3063786
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Hidden from view”

Text: Companion concedes that Johnston was subjectively unaware of the decay, but argues that all of the witnesses, including Johnston and his expert, acknowledged that the decay was apparent and visible from inside the warehouse. Companion argues that if Johnston “took the time to look,” he would have seen the decay. As such, it contends that Johnston failed to prove that the decay on the building was “hidden from view,” as required for coverage under the insurance policy. Under Georgia law, “[w]ords in an insurance contract must be given their 7 We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Bianchi, 441 F.3d at 1282. We need not separately review this issue under the more lenient standard because we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict under the more stringent de novo standard. 10 usual, ordinary, and common meaning.” Bold Corp., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 454 S.E.2d 582, 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). In its ordinary usage, something is considered “hidden” if it is “out of sight.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1065 (1986). After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the decay was “hidden from view.” The evidence presented at trial established that the warehouse was dimly lit, containing only a few fluorescent fixtures. The decayed roof trusses were located approximately sixteen feet above the warehouse’s floor. Johnston, Brown, and Clein all testified that when standing underneath the mezzanine, view of the decayed trusses was obscured by a beam and boxes stacked on top of the mezzanine. Companion’s expert, Hildebrand, agreed that “[i]f one were standing underneath the mezzanine, you could not see the decay on the roof structure.” The witnesses only viewed the decayed trusses after the collapse. The witnesses therefore could not speak definitively as to how apparent the decay was prior to the collapse. Companion has not met the weighty burden of showing that “reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Goldsmith, 513 F.3d at 1275. A reasonable jury could have found that the poor lighting, the beam, and the boxes 11 stacked on the mezzanine rendered the decay “out of sight,” and thus “hidden from view.” We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on the grounds that the decay was not “hidden from view.”