when “the sum owed is fixed and certain, meaning there is no bona fide controversy over the amount.” Here, even after the trial court’s erroneous ruling establishing the closing on the loan as the date that Peachtree Bank — and RM Kids’s as the bank’s successor-in-interest — suffered a loss under the title in (2) (772 SE2d 668) (2015) (punctuation omitted). 47 Id. (punctuation omitted); accord Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. DTI Logistics, Inc., 300 Ga. App. 715, 722 (4) (686 SE2d 333) (2009); Int’l Indem. Co. v. Terrell, 178 Ga. App. 570, 570 (2) (344 SE2d 239) (1986). 48 Pacific Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. R.L. Kimsey Cotton Co., 114 Ga. App. 411, 416-17 (4) (151 SE2d 541) (1966) (emphasis added); see Braner v. S. Trust Ins. Co., 255 Ga. 117, 119 (1) (335 SE2d 547) (1985) (<HOLDING>); Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 182 Ga. 212,
holding that in a suit on a property damage insurance policy in which liability is not disputed but in which the amount of damage is disputed the amount is unliquidated holding that insurer owed homeowners full amount of policy when they suffered a total loss in not insignificant part as the result of windstorm damage although an excluded peril water contributed to the damage holding that the appropriation of the land is complete when the amount of damage awarded by the commissioners is paid and possession is taken holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations