Court Opinion

ID: 2964029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:13.948232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:41.451163
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                                [Not for Publication]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1990

                                  DAVID H. JOHNSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                [Hon. Charles B. Swartwood III, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                                _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Douglas Q. Meystre and  Fletcher, Tilton & Whipple, P.C. on  brief
            __________________      ________________________________
        for appellant.
            Joseph  P. Musacchio, John F.  Rooney, III and  Melick & Porter on
            ____________________  ____________________      _______________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 11, 1996
                                 ____________________

               Per Curiam.  We agree with the magistrate judge that the
               __________

              critical language of the insurance policy is not ambiguous

             and that the plain meaning accords with the result suggested

            by considering the entire policy and reasonable expectations. 

             Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum of

              the magistrate judge, the judgment is affirmed pursuant to
                                                    ________

                                   Local Rule 27.1.

                                         -2-
                                         -2-