The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-3521

___________

Allstate Insurance Company, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Mildred L. Johnson; Kristi B. *

Johnson, by and through her next *

friend Mildred L. Johnson; * Appeal from the United States

Tiffany D. Bryant, by and through* District Court for the

her next friend Mildred L. * Western District of Arkansas.

Johnson, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants, *

 *

Lawrence Tidwell; Charlotte *

Tidwell, *

Appellants, *

 *

Christopher D. Henson, *

 *

Defendant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 20, 1996

 Filed: August 6, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence and Charlotte Tidwell appeal from the district court's1

order denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new

trial in this diversity action arising out of a dispute over automobile

insurance coverage. We affirm.
-2-

Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) filed this action seeking a

declaration of its obligations under an insurance policy it had issued to

the Tidwells. The district court conducted a one-day jury trial, at which

the following evidence was adduced. In November 1992, Allstate notified

the Tidwells that their policy would be canceled for nonpayment of premium

at 12:01 a.m. on November 25 if payment was not received prior to that

time. At approximately 3:46 p.m. on November 25, the Tidwells' vehicle was

involved in an accident with another vehicle. Following the accident, the

Tidwells paid the premium. Allstate processed the premium, reinstated

coverage effective December 5, and refused to defend the Tidwells in a

state court action filed by the driver and passengers of the second

vehicle. A former Allstate claims representative testified that when the

Tidwells had previously made late payments, coverage was reinstated as of

the date the accounting department received and posted the payment, and

that the premium allocable to the lapsed period was either credited to the

Tidwells' account or refunded to them by check. Over the Tidwells' bestevidence-rule objection, the claims representative also testified that

Allstate had sent the Tidwells a $59 refund check for the relevant lapsed

period.

At the close of testimony, the district court denied the Tidwells'

motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury returned a verdict in

favor of Allstate, and the Tidwells renewed their motion for judgment as

a matter of law, and moved in the alternative for a new trial. The

district court concluded that the verdict was supported by ample evidence,

and denied the Tidwells' motions. On appeal, the Tidwells argue that the

district court improperly denied their post-trial motions, and that the

district court committed prejudicial error when it overruled their bestevidence-rule objection.

Having reviewed the trial transcript and the parties' briefs, we

reject the Tidwells' arguments. We agree with the district
-3-

court that ample evidence supported the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.