Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12870/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12870-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.

USCA11 Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 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.

USCA11 Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 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/CrossAppellants” 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. 

USCA11 Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3