UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



          No. 93-2230



                          MAINE DRILLING AND BLASTING, INC.,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                     INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Breyer,* Chief Judge,
                                         ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                            and Torruella, Circuit Judge.
                                           _____________



                                _____________________



               Stephen  B. Wade, with whom Skelton, Taintor & Abbott was on
               ________________            _________________________

          brief for appellant.

               James  D. Poliquin, with whom Norman, Hanson & Detroy was on
               __________________            _______________________

          brief for appellee Insurance Company of North America.







                                 ____________________



                                   October 18, 1995

                                 ____________________



                              
          ____________________



          *   Former Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this

          matter but did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of

          the panel's opinion.  The remaining two panelists therefore issue

          this opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   46(d).



























                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.   Maine  Drilling &  Blasting,
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.
                                ___________



          Inc. ("MD&B"), brought  suit in the United  States District Court



          of Maine,  alleging that the  Insurance Company of  North America



          ("INA")  was required to defend  and indemnify MD&B  in an action



          brought  against  MD&B arising  from  property  damage caused  by



          MD&B's  blasting work on a construction site.  The district court



          found that the  insurance policy at  issue excluded coverage  for



          the damages caused by MD&B, and granted summary judgment in favor



          of INA.  MD&B appealed, and  on August 29, 1994, we certified the



          following  dispositive  question  of  Maine law  to  the  Supreme



          Judicial Court of Maine.



                      Does     the    Explosives     Limitation

                      Endorsement  attached   to  the  standard

                      Comprehensive  General  Liability policy,

                      when considered in  conjunction with  the

                      business risk exclusions, j(5)  and j(6),

                      and  any  relevant  history  and  general

                      understanding of  the insurance industry,

                      create  such an ambiguity  that it should

                      be interpreted against the insurer, i.e.,

                      that  it  should  be  read  as  providing

                      business risk coverage for  MD&B's claims

                      against INA?



          Maine Drilling  and  Blasting, Inc.  v.  Insurance Co.  of  North
          ___________________________________      ________________________



          America, 34 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1994).
          _______



                    In  an opinion  dated September  29, 1995,  the Supreme



          Judicial  Court of Maine  answered the certified  question in the



          negative.



                      The  policy in  this case, read  with its

                      endorsements,       is       unambiguous.

                      Subsections  (j)(5)  and (j)(6)  serve to

                      limit  the  coverage  to   that  property

                      damage occurring to  property other  than

                      that on  which the insured  is to perform

                      its  work.    The   endorsement  confirms



                                         -2-



























                      coverage   for   'occurrence   of   harm'

                      blasting   risk,   albeit  at   a  higher

                      deductible.  The endorsement by its plain

                      language does not  extend coverage  where

                      coverage did not  exist, but provides for

                      a deductible where  coverage does  exist.

                      The  exclusions contained  in subsections

                      (j)(5) and  (j)(6) are unaffected  by the

                      plain   language    of   the   Explosives

                      Limitation Endorsement.



                      We  answer the certified  question in the

                      negative.



                    The Supreme Judicial Court's conclusion that the policy



          is unambiguous is  dispositive of  the only issue  in this  case.



          Because  the policy  is unambiguous, the  exclusions apply.   The



          decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor



          of INA is therefore affirmed.
                              affirmed





























































                                         -3-