St. Louis v. Commercial Union

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 6, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________

          No. 92-1713

                                 JUDITH A. ST. LOUIS,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                   [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                         Higginbotham,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                        ____________________

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                      _____________

                              _________________________

               Marvin H. Glazier and Vafiades, Brountas & Kominsky on brief
               _________________     _____________________________
          for appellant.
               Paul  W. Chaiken, Edith A. Richardson, and Rudman & Winchell
               ________________  ___________________      _________________
          on brief for appellee.

                              _________________________

_________________________

          _______________
          *Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Per  Curiam.  We affirm the judgment below on the basis
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ____________

          of the  magistrate judge's rescript,  which correctly  interprets

          the  insurance policy.   For  two reasons, we  reject appellant's

          newly emergent  argument that  the policy, so  construed, offends

          public policy.  In the first  place, this argument was not raised

          below, and  it is, therefore, waived.   See Clauson v. Smith, 823
                                                  ___ _______    _____

          F.2d 660,  666 (1st  Cir. 1987) (collecting  representative First

          Circuit cases).   We see no  reason to exempt this  case from the

          operation of the usual rule.  In the second place, the applicable

          financial responsibility statute,  Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29,  

          787 (West 1978), is  the best and clearest expression  of Maine's

          public policy on the  point   and the insurance  policy issued by

          the defendant, read in the way suggested by the magistrate judge,

          is in full compliance with that statute.

Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
          _________  ___

2