### The Honorab le 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 Johnson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants, * * Lawrence Tidwell; Charlotte * Tidwell, *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.
Law rence and Charlotte Tidwell appeal from the district court's 1 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 automobil e insurance coverage. We affirm.

### -2- Allst ate Insurance Company (Allstate) filed this action seeking a declaration of its ob ligations under an insurance policy it had issued to the Tidwells. The district court conducted a on e-day jury trial, at which the following evidence was adduced. In November 1992, Allstate notified the Tidwells that their policy would be canceledfor nonpayment of premium at 12:01 a.m. on November 25 if payment was not received prior to tha t time. At approximately 3:46 p.m. on November 25, the Tidwells' vehicle wa s involved in an accident with another vehicle. F ollowing the accident, the Tidwel ls paid the premium. Allstate processed the premium, reinstate d
cover age effective December 5, and refused to defend the Tidwells in a state cou rt action filed by the driver and passengers of the secon d vehicle. A former Al lstate claims representative testified that when the Tidwells had previous ly made late payments, coverage was reinstated as of the date the accounting department received and posted the payment, an d that the premium allocable to the lapsed period was either credited to the Tidwells' account or refunded to them by check. Over the Tidwells' bestevid ence-rule objection, the claims representative also testified tha t Allstate had sent the Tidwells a $59 refund check for the relevant lapsed period.

At the c lose of testimony, the district court denied the Tidwells ' motio nfor judgment as a matter of law. The jury returned a verdict i n 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. Th e district court concluded that the verdict was supported by ample evidence, and denied the Tidwel ls' motions. On appeal, the Tidwells argue that the distri ct court improperly denied their post-trial motions, and that th e district court committed prejudicial error when it overruled their bestevidence-rule objection.
Having reviewed the trial transcript and the parties' briefs, w e reject the Tidwells' arguments. We agree with the district

### -3-

court that ample evid ence 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.