The single issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court, in a non-jury action brought to recover certain damages under an insurance contract, committed reversible error in refusing to admit certain expert testimony concerning the scope of the contract’s coverage. We need not decide whether the court’s ruling amounted to an abuse of discretion, for if it were, such error would be harmless in light of the remaining uncontested findings of fact and conclusions of law. Cf. Cain et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 460 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1972).

Affirmed.