St. Louis v. Commercial Union

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November 6, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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