(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-60084
Summary Calendar
VICKIE C. STRICKLAND, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants,
MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(CA-2:89-42(P)(S))
(June 14, 1994)
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this diversity case, Plaintiffs-Appellants Vickie C.
Strickland and Leland Creel (Plaintiffs) appeal the district

-- 1 of 2 --

1995 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1993).
2610 So. 2d 290 (Miss. 1992) (allowing extra-contractual
damages when there was no arguable reason for the insurance
company to deny the plaintiff's claim).
3995 F.2d at 55-56.
4Strickland v. Motors Ins. Corp., 970 F.2d 132, 137-38 (5th
Cir. 1992).
2
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Motors Insurance
Company (MIC) on Plaintiffs' claim for extracontractual damages. We
affirm.
The district court concluded that, as a matter of law,
Plaintiffs are not entitled to extracontractual damages for MIC's
"wrongful" denial of Plaintiffs' insurance claim because MIC had an
arguable reason to deny the claim. The district court based its
conclusion on Hans Construction Co. v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New
York.1 In Hans Construction, a panel of this court made an Erie
guess that, in light of Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Veasley,2 the
Mississippi Supreme Court would deny recovery of extra-contractual
damages if an arguable reason to deny a plaintiff's claim existed.3
In a prior appeal of the case to this court, we upheld the
district court's ruling that MIC had an arguable reason to deny
Plaintiffs' claim.4 On these facts, our reading of Veasley,
coupled with this court's pronouncement in Hans Construction))
which binds us until the Mississippi Supreme Court makes a decision
to the contrary))compels an affirmance. The district court's grant
of summary judgment in favor of MIC is in all respects
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --