Guarantee Insurance Company, et al v. Brand Management Service Inc., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12870
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61670-LSS
GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY,
PATRIOT NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,
PATRIOT UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs – Counter
Defendants - Appellees
Cross Appellants,
versus
BRAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC.,
a.k.a. Brand Management Service,
HERSHEL WEBER,
a.k.a. Herschel Weber,
a.k.a. Hershal Weber,
a.k.a. Harold Weber,
Defendants - Counter
Claimants – Appellants
Cross Appellees.
Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
No. 15-15162
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61670-LSS
GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY,
PATRIOT NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,
PATRIOT UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs – Counter
Defendants -
Appellees,
versus
BRAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC.,
a.k.a. Brand Management Service,
HERSHEL WEBER,
a.k.a. Herschel Weber,
a.k.a. Hershal Weber,
a.k.a. Harold Weber,
Defendants – Counter
Claimants -Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2016)
Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and WOOD,* District
Judge.
* Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Defendants appeal the district court’s award of future damages on Plaintiffs’
claims for breach of contract, as well as its award of attorneys’ fees and expenses
to Plaintiffs. On appeal, Defendants argue that the court calculated the amount of
Plaintiffs’ future financial losses based on insufficient evidence and failed to
discount the amount to present value. Defendants also contend that the district
court erred in awarding the full amount of Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses,
attributable to both their successful contract claims and unsuccessful tort claims
alike, and in assessing the award against Defendants jointly and severally.
Plaintiffs cross appeal the district court’s ruling that Defendants were not
liable for fraudulent inducement or negligent misrepresentation, and that punitive
damages thus were not unwarranted. Plaintiffs assert that the court erred in its
analysis of the parol evidence rule and justifiable reliance under Florida law and
neglected to consider key evidence.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the benefit of
oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district court’s rulings.
AFFIRMED.1
1 Defendants’ “Motion to Strike a Portion of the Answer and Initial Brief of Appellees/Cross-
Appellants” is GRANTED. We did not rely on the factual findings in Sentry Insurance v. Brand
Management Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), to resolve this appeal.
Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --