
    Jesus CAMACHO, surviving spouse of Stacey Camacho, LeJean Nichols, as Administratrix of the Estate of Stacey Camacho, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-14225
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (July 7, 2017)
    Brandon Graham Cathey, Swope Ro-dante, PA, Tampa, FL, Richard Dolder, James N. Sadd, Slappey & Sadd, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Darrell Hinson, Swope Ro-dante PA, Decatur, GA, for Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees Jesus Camacho, LeJean Nichols
    Michael P. Kenny, Bryan Lutz, Tiffany Lynne Powers, Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Ruth Tyler Bryant, Stephanie Feingold Glickauf, Goodman McGuffey Lindsey & Johnson, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Robert M. Darroch, Goodman McGuffey Lindsey & Johnson, LLP, Sarasota, FL, for Defendant-Appellant
    William V. Custer, IV, Bryan Cave, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Amicus Curiae Georgia Chamber of Commerce
    John David Hadden, Turkheimer & Hadden, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Caleb F. Walker, McArthur Law Firm, Macon, GA, for Amicus Curiae Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
    Jeffrey Dale Diamond, Diamond Law Office, Atlanta, GA, for Amicus Curiae United Policyholders
    David M. Atkinson, Jonathan J. Kandel, Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Amicus Curiae Georgia Defense Lawyers Association
    Before JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, of the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

This case is before us on defendant-appellant Nationwide’s appeal of the district court’s final order entered on May 25, 2016 denying Nationwide’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entering final judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellees, as well as on Nationwide’s appeal of several other intermediate orders and rulings made by the district court.

We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, Nationwide’s supplemental authority filed on July 3, 2017, and all orders and rulings, including the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned final order. Based on that review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not err. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment in this case.  