[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-14243 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 20, 2012 ________________________ 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