Case Name: ST. LOUIS TRIMMING, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN CREDIT INDEMNITY COMPANY, a company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-05-20
Citations: 113 F.3d 900
Docket Number: No. 96-2655EM
Parties: ST. LOUIS TRIMMING, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN CREDIT INDEMNITY COMPANY, a company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 113
Pages: 900–903

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS TRIMMING, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN CREDIT INDEMNITY COMPANY, a company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Appellee.
No. 96-2655EM.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 1997.
Decided May 20, 1997.
Alan S. Breckenridge, argued, St. Louis, MO (Thomas P. Hohenstein, on the brief), for appellant.
Richard H. Kuhlman, argued, St. Louis, MO (Jeffrey J. Kalinowski and B. Michelle Ward, on the brief), for appellee.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The question presented is whether a certain loss is covered by a policy of credit insurance issued by the defendant, American Credit Indemnity Company, to the plaintiff, St. Louis Trimming, Inc. The loss occurred before the premium applicable to the risk in question was paid. The District Court construed a provision of the policy to bar coverage under these circumstances. The District Court has filed a thorough published opinion. St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indem. Co., 924. F.Supp. 99 (E.D.Mo.1996). We have nothing of significance to add. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court.
The dissenting opinion argues that American Credit's conduct in accepting late payments of premiums amounts to a waiver of the policy provision in question, or estops American Credit to rely on the provision. For the reasons given at some length in the opinion of the District Court, we agree that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are not available here, because their use would allow the creation of coverage where, under the clear language of the policy, none exists. We point out, in addition, that the conduct of the insurer that is relied upon does not, in any event, amount to a waiver or estoppel. There is no past instance of the insurer's paying a loss with respect to which the premium had not been paid at the time the loss occurred. Late payments of premiums were accepted, but in no case did the insurance company pay a loss that had occurred before the relevant premium payment.
The insurance company is instructed to return to St. Louis Trimming, Inc., the premiums attributable to the loss that occurred in this case. On this understanding, the judgment is.
Affirmed.
. The Hon. Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.