Savage & Turner, P.C., et al., v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, et al., No. 11-14243 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-14243 MARCH 20, 2012 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK 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 Florida ________________________ (March 20, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
