
    GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY, Patriot National Insurance Group, Patriot Underwriters, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees Cross Appellants, v. 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. Guarantee Insurance Company, Patriot National Insurance Group, Patriot Underwriters, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees, v. 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.
    No. 15-12870, No. 15-15162
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/08/2016
    Sherril Colombo, Noah E. Storch, Littler Mendelson, PC, Stefanie M. Mederos, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dieker, LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees-Cross Appellants.
    Connis 0. Brown, III, Vanessa Cady, Seth Peter Robert, Brown Robert, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Avrom R. Vann, Law Office of Avrom R. Vann, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross Ap-pellees.
    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.
    
   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 arpount 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 toi't 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. 
      
      . Defendants’ "Motion to Strike a Portion of the Answer and Initial Brief of Appel-lees/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.
     