Case Name: STOEHNER SERVICE SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-11-09
Citations: 533 So. 2d 897
Docket Number: Nos. 87-1768, 87-2949
Parties: STOEHNER SERVICE SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 533
Pages: 897–897

Head Matter:
STOEHNER SERVICE SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 87-1768, 87-2949.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 9, 1988.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 13, 1988.
Jesse C. Jones and John L. Chalif of Bailey, Dawes & Hunt, Miami, for appellant.
John R. Hargrove of Tew, Jorden & Schulte, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We sua sponte consolidate these actions and reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment against appellant on its claims for fraud and intentional interference with a contract. We believe factual issues exist as to appellee Bell South's responsibility for its manager's and other employees' interference in a contract between appellant and Southern Bell. Similarly, we believe a fact issue exists as to Southern Bell's responsibility for fraud in entering into the contract with the appellant knowing that the agent delegated to supervise the contract intended to prevent the appellant from successfully performing the contract.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.