USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________



          No. 96-2070



                          MANCHESTER SECURITY SERVICE, INC.,



                                Plaintiff - Appellant,



                                          v.



                    CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, ETC., ET AL.,



                               Defendants - Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________



                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                _____________________



               Andrew D. Dunn,  with whom Devine,  Millimet & Branch,  P.A.
               ______________             _________________________________

          was on brief for appellant.

               Louis M.  Rohrberg, with whom  Rohrberg & Associates  was on
               __________________             _____________________

          brief for appellees.







                                 ____________________



                                    April 24, 1997

                                 ____________________









































                    Per  Curiam.  Upon review  of the briefs  and record in
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________



          this  case,  we affirm  the decision  of  the district  court for



          substantially  the  same  reasons  stated in  its  opinion  dated



          August 28, 1996.



                    Costs on appeal are awarded to appellees.
                    Costs on appeal are awarded to appellees.
                    ________________________________________

























































































                                         -2-