Guarantee Insurance Company, et al v. Brand Management Service Inc., et al, No. 15-12870 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-12870 ________________________ D.C. Docket No.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: 2 of 3 ________________________ 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. 2 Case: 15-12870 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 3 of 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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
