(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-4720
Summary Calendar
Olin Corp., Plaintiff,
versus
Koppers Co., Inc., et al., Defendants,
Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff
versus
Rhonel Didrikson d/b/a Didrikson & Assoc.,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant,
versus
Amerisure Insurance Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(CA-88-1557)
February 18, 1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Rhonel Didrikson, d/b/a Didrikson & Associates, a third-party
defendant in litigation arising from the failure of a steam turbine
compressor, demanded that his insurer provide a defense to claims
against him. The insurer, Amerisure Insurance Co., sought a
declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend Didrikson. The
district court held that Amerisure has no obligation to defend
Didrikson in this litigation. We affirm.
Didrikson is an engineering consulting firm retained by Olin
Corporation to provide technical support on its steam turbine.
Didrikson performed inspection and supervisory work with respect to
the turbine's maintenance. In June 1987, four months after
Didrikson was retained, the turbine oversped resulting in a
catastrophic failure. Olin sued, among others, Elliott
Turbomachinery which allegedly worked on the turbine immediately
prior to the accident. Elliott filed a third-party demand against
Didrikson, alleging that if Elliott is liable, Didrikson must share
that liability because Didrikson supervised, inspected, and tested
work done on the turbine.
Amerisure issued a comprehensive general liability policy to
Didrikson that was in effect in 1987. An endorsement to that
policy excluded claims arising out of the rendering of professional
services. After being sued by Elliott, Didrikson formally demanded
that Amerisure provide him a defense. Amerisure responded by
seeking a determination by declaratory judgment as to whether the
policy required it to provide Didrikson with a defense to Elliott's
claims.

-- 2 of 5 --

1By agreement of the parties, we will treat Amerisure as an
intervening third-party defendant with a cross-claim for
declaratory relief against Didrikson.
3
Despite some procedural irregularities waived by the parties,
the district court heard Amerisure's request for declaratory
relief.1 The court considered the pleadings and submissions of
both sides, and held that Amerisure did not have a duty to defend.
Believing that the district court's grant of declaratory relief was
immediately appealable, Didrikson filed a notice of appeal.
Following the notice of appeal, we asked the parties to
discuss whether a final order had been entered. Appellant then
secured a Rule 54(b) order certifying the decision as a final
judgment subject to immediate appeal. A Rule 54(b) certification
entered nunc pro tunc after the notice of appeal is effective.
Local P-171, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Thompson
Farms Co., 642 F.2d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir. 1981)(Wisdom, J., sitting
by designation). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 12
U.S.C. § 1291.
There is some uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of
review in this case. We need not determine whether the appropriate
standard of review is de novo, see Selective Ins. Co. v. J.B.
Mouton & Sons, Inc., 954 F.2d 1075, 1076 (5th Cir. 1992), abuse of
discretion, see Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706
F.2d 599, 601 (5th Cir. 1983), or somewhere in between, see PPG
Industries, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674, 682 (5th
Cir. 1973). Under any of these standards, we would affirm.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
In Louisiana, an insurer's duty to defend is determined by
comparing the allegations of the complaint against the insured with
the terms of the policy. Jensen v. Snellings, 841 F.2d 600, 612
(5th Cir. 1988). The insurer must provide a defense unless the
allegations in the complaint unambiguously exclude coverage. Id.
"Thus, the insurer is obligated to defend if the complaint
discloses even a possibility of liability under the policy." Id.
The applicable complaint here is Elliott's third-party demand
against Didrikson. That complaint alleges that Didrikson
"supervise[d] all repairs" of the turbine, "inspect[ed] all
repairs," and had the "responsibility of supervising the
procurement of parts." Also, Didrikson allegedly was "charged . .
. with the responsibility of testing" the turbine to ensure its
throttle functioned properly. Elliott contends that if it is
liable for negligence related to work on the turbine, Didrikson
must indemnify or share liability with Elliott.
Amerisure's policy was issued to Didrikson, whose business is
described as "Consulting Engineer-Electrical." It contained an
endorsement entitled "Exclusion (Engineers, Architects or Surveyors
Professional Liability)." That endorsement excludes coverage for
[P]roperty damage arising out of the rendering of or the
failure to render any professional services by or for the
named insured, including . . . (2) supervisory,
inspection or engineering services.
This policy unambiguously excludes coverage for all of the
claims asserted by Elliott's third-party demand. First, Elliott

-- 4 of 5 --

2We find no merit to the contention that the district judge
based his decision on his personal experience. The court used
himself as an example only by way of illustration.
5
seeks to establish liability on the basis that Didrikson engaged in
supervision and inspection--conduct expressly denoted by the
exclusion. Second, Elliott claims that Didrikson is liable on the
basis of its responsibility for testing. Although the exclusion
does not use the terms test or testing, its illustrative list of
conduct is not exclusive. Any claim based on the rendering of
professional services by an engineer is unambiguously excluded.
The testing of a steam turbine and its components is clearly a
professional service rendered by engineers. Therefore, Amerisure
had no obligation to provide a defense for Didrikson against these
claims.
Didrikson correctly asserts that extrinsic evidence cannot be
considered in determining the existence of the duty to defend.
Jensen, 841 F.2d at 612. Besides the policy and Elliott's third-
party complaint, the record contains a prospectus of Didrikson's
business, portions of Didrikson's deposition, and a copy of
Didrikson's contract with Olin. The district court's decision is
not dependent upon the contents of any of these documents. We do
not rely upon them to find that the district court reached the
correct conclusion. Therefore, any error committed by the district
court in considering these materials was harmless error.2
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --