UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-30507 Summary Calendar _______________________

JEAN A. MEADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (96-CV-1815) _________________________________________________________________

January 22, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff, Jean A.M. Meade, appeals the district court’s

summary judgment denying her claim for benefits from a life

insurance policy issued by USAA Life Insurance Company and covering

the life of her deceased ex-husband. The company denied coverage

because Meade’s former husband ceased paying premiums and allowed

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. the policy to lapse more than one year before he died; USAA

asserted that it had no contractual or legal duty to notify Meade

of the lapse. Meade argues that there are genuine issues of

material fact which would preclude the grant of summary judgment.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, and

we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. See

Meade v. USAA Life Ins. Co., No. 96-CV-1815 (E.D. La. Feb. 6,

1997). In particular, Meade is not entitled to coverage because

Louisiana law affords no support for her argument that the one-year

policy extension provided by LSA-R.S. 22:177 either did not apply

to her or lasted beyond May 14, 1995, one year after her ex-

husband’s death.1

1 USAA’s brief on appeal was of limited help insofar as it implied there was “no evidence” on some issues when, in fact, there was disputed evidence but the issues were not material to the parties’ dispute. Fortunately, the district court exhibited no such confusion. USAA should more carefully follow the standards for appellate review of summary judgments.

2