
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          November 6, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                             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
