UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30712 Summary Calendar _____________________

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.,

Defendant-Appellee,

versus

SIMONELLI ENTERPRISES INC., doing business as Simonelli Grocery,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (2:94-CV-2213) _________________________________________________________________ January 10, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Simonelli Enterprises, Inc., challenges the adequacy of

damages awarded for lost profits by the district court following a

bench trial. Simonelli contends that the district court erred by

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. relying on the projection of future loss testified to by State

Farm’s expert witness, who relied on “national average” components.

Simonelli charges that this testimony was less reliable than that

of its expert or that of Kansas City Southern Railway Co.’s expert,

both of whose projections were derived using actual financial data

of the business.

In its findings of fact, the district court stated the State

Farm’s expert’s “calculations are the most detailed and reliable of

the lost profits figures presented to the court.” Needless to say,

“[t]he credibility determination of witnesses, including experts,

is peculiarly within the province of the district court.” Orduna

S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp.,

(5th Cir. 1990).

We cannot say that the district court committed clear error by

accepting the testimony of State Farm’s expert over that of the

other two.

See also FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of

Bessemer City, N.C.,

(1985) (“Where there are

two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice

between them cannot be clearly erroneous.").

The judgment is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

- 2 -