United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2402EM

_____________ United States Fidelity and Guaranty * Company, a corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Concrete Holding Company, formerly * known as St. Charles Quarry Company, * doing business as Defiance Quarry, * doing business as Kurtz Concrete, Inc., * Appeals from the United States doing business as Goellner Redi-Mix, * District Court for the Eastern Inc., a corporation; St. Charles County * District of Missouri. Sanitary Landfill, Inc., an * administratively-dissolved corporation; * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants-Appellees, * * Quarry Holding Company, a voluntarily- * dissolved corporation, * * Defendant-Appellant, * * v. * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; * * Third Party Defendants, * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding *-2-

Company; James P. Davis; Quarry * Development Company; Community * Title Company, * * Cross Defendants. *

____________________ * * Concrete Holding Company, * * Third Party Plaintiff- * Appellee, * * v. * * James P. Davis, individually, and as * statutory and common law trustee for * defendant Quarry Holding Company; * Quarry Development Company; * Community Title Company, * * Third Party Defendants- * Appellants. *

_____________ No. 97-2405EM

_____________ United States Fidelity and Guaranty * Company, a corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Concrete Holding Company, formerly * known as St. Charles Quarry Company, *-3-

doing business as Defiance Quarry, * doing business as Kurtz Concrete, Inc., * doing business as Goellner Redi-Mix, * Inc., a corporation; St. Charles County * Sanitary Landfill, Inc., an * administratively-dissolved corporation; * Quarry Holding Company, a voluntarily- * dissolved corporation, * * Defendants-Appellees, *

____________________ * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; * * Third Party Defendants, * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; James P. Davis; Quarry * Development Company; Community * Title Company, * * Cross Defendants, *

____________________ * * Concrete Holding Company; * * Third Party Plaintiff, * * James P. Davis, individually, and as * statutory and common law trustee for * defendant Quarry Holding Company; * Quarry Development Company; * Community Title Company, * * Third Party Defendants. *-4- _____________ No. 97-2408EM

_____________ United States Fidelity and Guaranty * Company, a corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Concrete Holding Company, formerly * known as St. Charles Quarry Company, * doing business as Defiance Quarry, * doing business as Kurtz Concrete, Inc., * doing business as Goellner Redi-Mix, * Inc., a corporation; * * Defendant-Appellant, * * St. Charles Sanitary Landfill, Inc., an * administratively-dissolved corporation; * * Defendant, * * Quarry Holding Company, a voluntarily- * dissolved corporation, * * Defendant-Appellee, *

______________________ * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; * * Third Party Defendants, *-5-

John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; James P. Davis; Quarry * Development Company; Community * Title Company, * * Cross Defendants, *

____________________ * * Concrete Holding Company; * * Third Party Plaintiff- * Appellant, * * v. * * James P. Davis, individually, and as * statutory and common law trustee for * defendant Quarry Holding Company; * Quarry Development Company; * Community Title Company, * * Third Party Defendants- * Appellees. *

_____________ No. 97-2763EM

_____________ United States Fidelity and Guaranty * Company, a corporation, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Concrete Holding Company, formerly *-6-

known as St. Charles Quarry Company, * doing business as Defiance Quarry, * doing business as Kurtz Concrete, Inc., * doing business as Goellner Redi-Mix, * Inc., a corporation; St. Charles County * Sanitary Landfill, Inc., an * administratively-dissolved corporation; * Quarry Holding Company, a voluntarily- * dissolved corporation, * * Defendants, * * v. * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; * * Third Party Defendants, * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; James P. Davis; Quarry * Development Company; Community * Title Company, * * Cross Defendants, *

____________________ * * Concrete Holding Company, * * Third Party Plaintiff- * Appellee, * * v. * * James P. Davis, individually, and as * statutory and common law trustee for * defendant Quarry Holding Company; *-7- Third Party Defendant- * Appellant, * * Quarry Development Company; * * Third Party Defendant, * * Community Title Company, * * Third Party Defendant- * Appellant. *

_____________ No. 97-3512EM

_____________ United States Fidelity and Guaranty * Company, a corporation, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Concrete Holding Company, formerly * known as St. Charles Quarry Company, * doing business as Defiance Quarry, * doing business as Kurtz Concrete, Inc., * doing business as Goellner Redi-Mix, * Inc., a corporation; St. Charles County * Sanitary Landfill, Inc., an * administratively-dissolved corporation; * Quarry Holding Company, a voluntarily- * dissolved corporation, * * Defendants, *-8-

v. * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; * * Third Party Defendants, * * John J. Barnes, Jr.; Quarry Holding * Company; James P. Davis; Quarry * Development Company; Community * Title Company, * * Cross Defendants, *

____________________ * * Concrete Holding Company, * * Third Party Plaintiff- * Appellee, * * v. * * James P. Davis, individually, and as * statutory and common law trustee for * defendant Quarry Holding Company; * * Third Party Defendant- * Appellant, * * Quarry Development Company; * Community Title Company, * * Third Party Defendants. *

_____________The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United StatesDistrict Judge for the Northern * District of Iowa, sitting by designation. -9-

Submitted: March 9, 1998

Filed: March 26, 1998

_____________ Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. The court has considered the briefs of the parties and heard oral argument in this diversitycase. The parties raise an assortment of contentions about instructions, admissibility of evidence, trial-related orders, and post-trial rulings deemed adverse to them. Their arguments have been carefully analyzed and considered. After review of therecordin the context of the parties' arguments, we find the record supports the district court's decisions with the exception of the court's ruling on United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company's request for prejudgment interest. Because our review involves the application of established principles of law in a fact-intensive case, and the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly f amiliar with the issues before the court, we conclude that an extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose. We thus remand to the district court with instructions to award appropriate prejudgment interest to the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; otherwise, we affirm the district court without further discussion.See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest:

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