UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.
REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendant & Third Party PlaintiffAppellee,

v. REFLECTIONS CAR WASH, LLC; C. LYNN WHITE; SANDRA M. WHITE; DIANE BRACKETT RIVERS; A. DONOVAN RIVERS, SR.; JAMES F. No. 99-1152 ALEXANDER; MARTHA B. ALEXANDER; GEORGE W. BRACKETT; ANN E. BRACKETT; RICHARD J. MILLER, M.D.; CHARLES M. EVANS; A. DONOVAN RIVERS, JR.; CAROLYN RIVERS; BARBARA J. KAISER,Third Party DefendantsAppellants,
and AMERICAN SURETY AGENCY, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCIES, INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-473-3-P)Argued: October 27, 1999 Decided: November 16, 1999 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL
ARGUED: Gerard Alford Bos, WILSON & BOS, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. Spencer Dean Hamrick, WAGGONER, HAMRICK, HASTY, MONTEITH & KRATT, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION
PER CURIAM: The Branch Banking & Trust Company ("the Bank") filed suit inthe United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the Republic Western Insurance Company ("Republic") for payment on bonds issued on behalf of Republic as collateral on a loan to Reflections Car Wash, L.L.C. ("Reflections"). Republic in turn filed a third-party complaint against Reflections, the individual principals on the bonds, the American Surety Agency ("ASA"), andthe American Insurance Agency ("AIA"). Reflections and the individual principals on the bonds then counterclaimed against Republic for a variety of claims related to Republic's failure to pay on the bonds.
2The district court granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment against Republic and Republic's motion for summary judgment against Reflections and the other third-party defendants, and itrejected a motion by Reflections and the individual principals for partial summary judgment against Republic. Reflections and the individual principals appeal; finding no error, we affirm.On June 27, 1994, the Bank lent Reflections $2,500,000 to construct and operate a car wash in Charlotte, North Carolina. Part of thecollateral for the loan consisted of ten bonds issued by AIA as a subagent of ASA, allegedly on behalf of Republic. Republic subsequently notified Reflections and ASA that it believed the bonds were neither valid nor enforceable. On July 18, 1996, the Bank declared Reflections in default. The Bank then entered into a Forbearance Agreement on August 21, 1996, with Reflections, Republic, and the principals on the bonds that delayed foreclosure until September 23, 1996. On October 8, 1996, the Bank demanded payment on the bonds from Republic, and Republic declined to pay.On October 28, 1996, the Bank filed the instant suit against Republic for payment on the bonds, Republic filed a third-party complaint against Reflections, the principals on the bonds, ASA, and AIA, and Reflections filed a counterclaim against Republic for causing damage to Reflections' ability to avoid default and foreclosure by refusing to pay on the bonds. Reflections further claimed that by failing to pay on the bonds Republic had violated the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 ( 1999). The district court, reasoning that regardless of the validity of the initial issuance of the bonds Republic had ratified the bonds byaccepting the premiums on them, granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment against Republic. That judgment has now been satisfied. The district court also granted Republic's motion for summary judgment against Reflections on the grounds that once Republic hadsatisfied Reflections' obligation to the Bank, it was entitled to subrogation of the Bank's rights against Reflections. Finally, the district court denied Reflections' motion for partial summary judgment against Republic, reasoning that the Bank did not call on Republic to
3pay the bonds until after Reflections had failed to honor its obligations to the bank, and therefore that Republic's failure to pay upon demand had not damaged Reflections. The district court further found that Republic's actions, as merely a breach of contract, did not rise to the level of unfair or deceptive trade practices. Reflections appeals the grant of Republic's motion for summary judgment against Reflections and the denial of Reflections' motionfor partial summary judgment against Republic, arguing that the district court improperly granted summary judgment to Republic and that genuine issues of material fact remain. We have reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of parties, and we are persuaded that the district court is correct. We therefore affirm on the basis of the district court's opinion. See Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Republic Western Insurance Co. v. Reflections Car Wash, L.L.C., et al. , No. 3:96 CV 473-P (W.D.N.C. July 22, 1998).
AFFIRMED
4