
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 21, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1825                    PENNSYLVANIA MILLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                LEO H. CHEEVER, ETC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                                   JOHN DOE, ETC.,                                Intervenor, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                 [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                                 ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,                                            ______________                             and Carter,* District Judge.                                          ______________                              _________________________               Geoffrey P. Lynch for intervenor-appellant.               _________________               Kevin  C. Devine, with whom  Devine & Nyquist  was on brief,               ________________             ________________          for plaintiff-appellee.                              _________________________                               _______________________          _______________          *Chief  Judge, U.S.  District Court  for the  District of  Maine,          sitting by designation.                    Per  Curiam.  In Burnham  v. Guardian Life  Ins. Co. of                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________      _______     __________________________          Am., 873 F.2d 486 (1st Cir. 1989) we wrote:          ___                         This is  a hard case    hard not  in the                    sense that it is  legally difficult or  tough                    to crack,  but in the sense  that it requires                    us, like the court below, to deny relief to a                    [party]   for   whom  we   have  considerable                    sympathy.  We do what we must, for "it is the                    duty of  all courts of justice  to take care,                    for the general  good of the community,  that                    hard  cases do  not  make bad  law."   United                                                           ______                    States  v.  Clark,  96  U.S.  37,  49  (1877)                    ______      _____                    (Harlan,   J.,   dissenting)  (quoting   Lord                    Campbell in  East Indian Co. v.  Paul, 7 Moo.                                 _______________     ____                    P.C.C. 111).          Id. at 487.  These words are equally applicable here.          ___                    We  have   read   the  record,   studied  the   briefs,          entertained oral  argument, considered the  parties' contentions,          and examined the New Hampshire precedents that necessarily direct          our  disposition in this  diversity case.   When all  is said and          done, we  do not believe  that we can  improve measurably on  the          district court's lucid exposition  of the governing law,  or that          any useful  purpose  would be  served  by issuing  a  full-length          opinion that  merely recasts the  district court's thesis  in our          own words.  Consequently, we summarily affirm the judgment below,          see 1st Cir. R. 27.1, for substantially the reasons set  forth in          ___          the  district court's  orders dated  May 12,  1994, and  June 27,          1994, respectively.                    We add two brief  comments.  First, we think  that this          case is clearly controlled  by the New Hampshire Supreme  Court's          determination in Vermont Mut.  Ins. Co. v. Malcolm, 517  A.2d 800                           ______________________    _______          (N.H.  1986), which we  read as holding  unequivocally, on policy                                          2          language  that  is identical  in  every material  respect  to the          language here at issue,  that perpetrating a sexual assault  on a          minor is an inherently injurious act falling outside  the purview          of  the insurance coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy.  See                                                                        ___          id.  at 802.   Second, we do  not believe that  the New Hampshire          ___          Supreme Court's  recent decision in Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co.                                              _____________________________          v. Scanlon, 638 A.2d 1246 (N.H. 1994), casts any legitimate doubt             _______          upon either  the authoritativeness  or the continued  vitality of          the holding in the earlier Vermont Mut. case.                                     ____________                    We need go no further.  The judgment below is summarily          Affirmed.          Affirmed.          ________                                          3
