Wharf Retail Properties, LLC v. Landmark American Insurance Company

USCA11 Case: 24-13664 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13664 ____________________ WHARF RETAIL PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00449-KD-B ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, KIDD, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Wharf Retail Properties, LLC (Wharf) sued Defendant-Appellee Landmark American Insurance Com- pany (Landmark) for breach of contract and bad faith related to an insurance policy between the parties. The policy covered Wharf’s USCA11 Case: 24-13664 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13664 properties, which sustained damage from Hurricane Sally. As rele- vant here, the jury determined that Landmark breached its agree- ment with Wharf and calculated the damages. Wharf then moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.

We have considered all arguments raised on appeal by Wharf, including that: I. The district court misled the jury by using a special interrogatories form without appropriate instruction.

II. The district court erred by failing to inform the jury it would subtract additional amounts from their dam- ages calculations.

III. The verdict form failed to include a necessary ques- tion regarding whether Landmark met its burden of proof as to the insurable property values.

IV. Landmark’s affirmative defenses were effectively ap- plied twice, which wrongfully reduced Wharf’s award amount.

V. The jury erred by relying on the 2020 and 2023 expert reports because neither party intended for those re- ports to be used for calculating damages.

VI. The district court erred by denying Wharf’s motion for a new trial because the jury’s damage calculations were not supported by the evidence.

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the rec- ord, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible USCA11 Case: 24-13664 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/13/2026 Page: 3 of 3

24-13664 Opinion of the Court 3 error in the district court’s proceedings. Therefore, the district court’s decision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.