UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Branch Banking & Trust Company ("the Bank") filed suit in

the 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"), and

the 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.

 2
The 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 it

rejected 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 the

collateral 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 by

accepting 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 had

satisfied 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

 3
pay 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' motion

for 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