GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC., 15-12870 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Number: infco20160708073
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2016
Summary: DO NOT PUBLISH PER CURIAM .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 an
Summary: DO NOT PUBLISH PER CURIAM .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..
More
DO NOT PUBLISH
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
FootNotes
* Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
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.
Source: Leagle
