
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                                [Not for Publication]                                [Not for Publication]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE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-
