UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION;
GENERAL NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.                                                                  No. 98-1088

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, d/b/a Crum & Forster
Insurance,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-97-490-3)

Argued: October 27, 1998

Decided: December 4, 1998

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BOYLE, Chief United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Michael J. Lockerby, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellants. Allan McAlpin Heyward, Jr., COOK,
WARE & HEYWARD, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Michael C. Whitticar, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond,
Virginia; Richard J. Fortwengler, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellants. Henry N. Ware, Jr., Timothy S. Feehan,
COOK, WARE & HEYWARD, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

General Nutrition Corporation and General Nutrition Distribution
Company ("GNC") appeal the district court's grant of United States
Fire Insurance Company's ("U.S. Fire") motion for summary judg-
ment. The underlying claims revolve around GNC's contentions that
U.S. Fire breached a duty to defend GNC and failed to fulfil an
alleged duty to indemnify GNC. The duties in question supposedly
sprung from a transaction between GNC and 4Health, Incorporated
("4Health"), which was a supplier to GNC and insured by U.S. Fire.

When 4Health and GNC were sued by Ultra Nutrition, Incorpo-
rated ("UNI") for trademark infringement involving the goods sold to
GNC by 4Health, U.S. Fire negotiated a settlement with UNI. GNC
alleges that this settlement undermined the value of GNC's inventory,
and was entered into without proper consideration of GNC's interests.

The district court found that the contractual relationships between
U.S. Fire and 4Health and between 4Health and GNC did not create
coverage for GNC applicable in this case. Other claims made by GNC
were found to be without merit. Upon review of the briefs and the
record, and after consideration of oral arguments, we conclude that
the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to U.S.
Fire. For the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opin-

                    2
ion, GNC was not entitled to indemnification by U.S. Fire. See
General Nutrition Corp. v. U. S. Fire Ins. Co., CA No. 3:97CV490
(E.D. Va. January 12, 1998). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.

AFFIRMED

                   3
