Savage & Turner, P.C., et al., v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, et al.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 20, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14243
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00088-LGW-JEG
SAVAGE & TURNER, P.C.,
AND KENNETH E. FUTCH, P.C.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 20, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

In this case, Savage & Turner, P.C., and Kenneth E. Futch, P.C.
(collectively, the “Law Firms”) sued Zurich American Insurance Company, and its
subsidiary, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (collectively, “F&D”) for
tortious interference with their contractual relations, seeking compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The gist of the alleged tortious interference
is that F&D interfered with the ability of the Law Firms to recover attorneys’ fees
due them for representing Douglas Asphalt Company and its principals, Joel
Spivey and Kyle Spivey, in various lawsuits. F&D denied liability and moved the
district court for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, in an order
entered August 10, 2011, concluding that the Law Firms presented nothing of
evidentiary value to support their tortious interference claim.
The Law Firms now appeal the judgment the district court entered pursuant
to its August 10 order. They ask us to vacate the judgment and remand the case
for further consideration because material issues of fact exist that precluded the
granting of summary judgment. For the reasons the district court explained in its
August 10 order, there is absolutely nothing in the record—save the Law Firms’
conclusory allegations—to support the Law Firms’ claim. The district court’s
judgment is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --