### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3511

___________ Richard K. Holloway; * Lois A. Holloway, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * State Farm Fire & Casualty * [UNPUBLISHED] Company, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 26, 1996 Filed: August 2, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action applying Arkansas law, Richard and Loi s Holloway appeal following a jury verdict in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (State Farm), and the di strict court's denial of their post- 1 trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. We affirm.
The Holloways claimed State Farm breached their homeowner's ins urance policy when, followin g a December 16, 1993 fire at their house in Lavaca, Arkansas, State Farm denied the Holloways' claim on the ground the fire wa s intentionally set by the Holloways. Following a two-day trial, the jury fou nd that "plaintiffs, or one of them intentionally burned the insure d property or intentionally

### -2-

caused it to be burned through another person or persons acting in their behalf." The district court entered judgment for State Farm on th e verdict, and denied t he Holloways' motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively for a new trial.

On appeal , the Holloways argue that the district court erred i n denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law because sufficien t evidence did not support the jury's verdict, and that the district court abused its discretion in limiting their cross-examination of one of State Farm's cause-and-origin experts, Randy VanZant.
A district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) is reviewed de novo, and presents the legal question of "`whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury v erdict.'" See McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc. , 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoted cas e omitted). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to th e prevailing party, and do not weigh the evidence or consider questions of credibility. Id. Granting a motion for JAML "is appropriate only when al l of the ev idence points one way and is `susceptible of no reasonabl e inference sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.'" Id. (quoted case omitted).
To avoid liability on its policy, State Farm had to prove by direct or circumstantial evidence that the Holloways se t the fire or caused their house to be burned. See Thomas v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 766 S.W.2d 31, 3 3 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 669 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Ark. Ct. App. 1984); see also Burnett v. Lloyds of London , 710 F.2d 488, 489 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (applying Arkansas law). We hav e carefully reviewed the evidence in light of the foregoing standards, and conclude that suffici ent evidence supported the jury's determination that an arson occurred and that the Holloways, or one of them, were responsible for it. Accordingly, the district court properly

### -3-

denied the Holloways' motion for JAML.

As to VanZant's cross-examination, the Holloways' attorney aske d VanZant whether an electrical engineer should be called in every fir e investigation, and VanZant answered no. Counsel then attempted to impeach VanZant by referencing testimony in a prior case in which VanZant testifie d that because that cas e involved an electrical fire, an engineer needed to inve stigate its cause. The district court did not permit counsel t o impeach VanZant with this prior testimony, because the evidence showed tha t the Holloways' fire was not an electrical fire, and counsel could not show that VanZant gave inconsistent answers to the sa me question in both cases. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting th e cross-examination. See Cummings v. Malone , 995 F.2d 817, 825 (8th Cir
. 1993) (standard of review).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

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