Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. v. Diaz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. v. Diaz

478 So. 2d 379, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2350, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16296

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2259

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 379 (Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. v. Diaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. v. Diaz, 478 So. 2d 379, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2350, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16296 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. appeals an order denying its motion for relief from judgment and affirming the final judgment entered following default judgment and non-jury trial on the issue of damages. It is well settled that a demand for jury trial entitles the demanding party to a jury determination as to damages, even after entry of a default. Air Unlimited, Inc. v. Volare Air, Inc., 428 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Saunders v. Saunders, 346 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in conducting a non-jury trial, and we remand for a jury trial solely on the issue of damages. We find no merit in the other points raised.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Employee Benefit Claims, Inc. appeals an order denying its motion for relief from judgment and affirming the final judgment entered following default judgment and non-jury trial on the issue of damages. It is well settled that a demand for jury trial entitles the demanding party to a jury determination as to damages, even after entry of a default. Air Unlimited, Inc. v. Volare Air, Inc., 428 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Saunders v. Saunders, 346 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in conducting a non-jury trial, and we remand for a jury trial solely on the issue of damages. We find no merit in the other points raised.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 379, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2350, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/employee-benefit-claims-inc-v-diaz-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack