Pennsylvania Miller v. Cheever, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsPennsylvania Miller v. Cheever, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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
________________
________________
for plaintiff-appellee.
was on brief,
_________________________
_______________________
_______________
*Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
sitting by designation.
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
___________
In Burnham
_______
for the
District of
v. Guardian Life
Maine,
Ins. Co. of
__________________________
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.
___
We
These words are equally applicable here.
have
entertained oral
read
the
record,
studied
argument, considered the
the
briefs,
parties' contentions,
and examined the New Hampshire precedents that necessarily direct
our
disposition in this
done, we
diversity case.
do not believe
that we can
district court's lucid exposition
any useful
purpose
opinion that
own words.
would be
is said and
improve measurably on
of the governing law,
served
merely recasts the
When all
by issuing
the
or that
full-length
district court's thesis
in our
Consequently, we summarily affirm the judgment below,
see 1st Cir. R. 27.1, for substantially the reasons set
___
forth in
the
June 27,
district court's
orders dated
May 12,
1994, and
1994, respectively.
We add two brief
case is clearly controlled
comments.
First, we think
by the New Hampshire Supreme
determination in Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Malcolm, 517
______________________
_______
(N.H.
1986), which we
read as holding
2
that this
Court's
A.2d 800
unequivocally, on policy
language
that
is identical
language here at issue,
in
every material
respect
that perpetrating a sexual assault
minor is an inherently injurious act falling outside
of
id.
___
to the
the purview
the insurance coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy.
at 802.
Second, we do
Supreme Court's
not believe that
on a
See
___
the New Hampshire
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.
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________
