Opinion ID: 2801672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lincoln’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: The final issue on the fiduciary duty claims is Lincoln’s argument that it is entitled to summary judgment on the breach element in the event we find— and we have—that U.S. Auto owed a fiduciary duty. Lincoln contends that its summary judgment evidence was similar to the evidence presented at trial which led to the finding of tortious interference against CSi and Alpha. Tortious interference on these facts, Lincoln says, is not much different than a breach of fiduciary duty. Although we conclude that U.S. Auto’s fiduciary duty encompassed the handling of funds even prior to their deposit in the trust account, we do not find that Lincoln is entitled to summary judgment as to the breach issue. In 24 Case: 13-10589 Document: 00513046323 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 No. 13-10589 its briefs, Lincoln primarily cites evidence not included in the summary judgment record. “[O]ur review is confined to an examination of materials before the lower court at the time the [summary judgment] ruling was made; subsequent materials are irrelevant.” Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988). U.S. Auto is entitled to defend this claim at trial. The summary judgment evidence does not establish breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law.