issue. See Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kellman, 197 F.3d 1178, 1181 (6th Cir.1999). Although the publication of Alcazar and Hutchison occurred after the district court issued judgment granting State Farm’s Rule 50 motion, it is well settled that “a judgment of a federal court ruled by state law and correctly applying that law as authoritatively declared by the state courts when the judgment was rendered, must be reversed on appellate review if in the meantime the state courts have disapproved of their former rulings and adopted different ones.” Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 236, 64 S.Ct. 1015, 88 L.Ed. 1246 (1944); accord Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311 U.S. 538, 543, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 L.Ed. 327 (1941); Awrey v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 352, 354 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Thus, an intervening state decision must be
holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that appellate courts analyze plain error by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided rather than the extant law at the time of the disputed trial court ruling holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that the court of appeals in applying state law on appeal of a diversity action must apply law of the state as it existed at the time of its decision rather than as it stood at the time the case was decided in district court holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action