State Bank & Trust v. Insurance Company

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-10833
_____________________
STATE BANK & TRUST CO., DALLAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(3:95-CV-2395-G)
_________________________________________________________________
April 7, 2000
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case involves claims of conversion and unjust enrichment
brought by State Bank, the plaintiff-appellant, against the
Insurance Company of the West (ICW), the defendant-appellee. State
Bank was the creditor of a plumbing subcontractor (DRT) that
defaulted on its loans. State Bank contends that ICW, the surety
for DRT, tortiously converted the tools, equipment and inventories
of DRT, against which State Bank had secured its loans.
Specifically, State Bank argues that ICW converted this property

-- 1 of 2 --

2
when ICW stepped in to complete three commercial subcontracts as
required by ICW’s performance bonds with DRT.
We have reviewed the record and studied the briefs in this
matter. We have also considered the arguments made before us. The
district court thoroughly treated the issues before it in a well
reasoned opinion. We cannot say that the district court was
clearly erroneous in determining that State Bank consented to the
use of materials and tools by ICW. Consequently, we agree with the
district court that State Bank is entitled to no equitable relief,
either under a theory of conversion or unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 2 of 2 --