86 Ark. App. 47, 158 S.W.3d 726 (2004). In Machost v. Simkins, supra, we held that a court should not consider an affidavit wherein a juror attempts to relate the reasons behind the jury’s damage award. There, the plaintiff, Machost, submitted a juror affidavit to the court explaining why the jury had mistakenly awarded her only $2,000 when the evidence clearly showed that she had incurred $10,000 in reasonable and necessary medical expenses. We held that, “[bjecause Machost has not alleged that some outside influence affected the jury’s deliberations, this court cannot consider the affidavit or its allegations that the jury was confused when it awarded Machost only $2,000.” 86 Ark. App. at 54, 158 S.W.3d at 730; see also Bailey v. Stewart, 236 Ark. 80, 83, 364 S.W.2d 662, 664 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The juror affidavits in this case do not
holding that to offset a jurys damage award a separate thirdparty insurance award must cover the same loss which served as the basis for the jury award holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award recognizing that a court can exercise its discretion not to award costs to a prevailing party as long as the court states its reasons for refusing to permit the award holding in a case that predates the arkansas rules of evidence that the use of a juror affidavit to explain the jurys intention regarding its damage award was incompetent for reasons of public policy