Northwestern National Life Insurance v. David

Florida Circuit Courts

Northwestern National Life Insurance v. David

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 205

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1991

DocketCase No. CL-89-13408-AD

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 205 (Northwestern National Life Insurance v. David) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northwestern National Life Insurance v. David, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 205 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT M. GROSS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

This case came before the Court on April 11, 1991 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial. Both sides were present through counsel. In this case, Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover payments made pursuant to her husband’s disability insurance policy. Plaintiff contends that Defendant cashed checks which it erroneously sent to Defendant’s husband after his death. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim. The counterclaim concerned a life insurance policy which had been provided to her husband as an incident of. his employment. In her counterclaim, Defendant contends that her husband was an “executive officer” of his [206]*206company entitled to a life insurance death benefit of $150,000. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s husband’s job status was that of an “employee” such that the $75,000 policy benefit which Defendant received was appropriate. Thus, the narrow factual issue of the counterclaim is the job classification of Defendant’s husband at the time he became disabled. Unlike a claim on a medical insurance plan issued pursuant to ERISA, which is equitable in nature, e.g., Blake v Union-Mutual Stock Life Ins. Co. of America, 906 F. 2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990), the issue in this case is a narrow factual issue typical of actions at law. If Defendant prevails on the disputed factual issue, her right to payment will be immediate and unconditional. See, Wardle v Central States Pension Fund, 627 F. 2d 820, 829 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112 (1981); Ovitz v Jefferies & Co., 553 F. Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1981). Accordingly, a right to a jury trial exists. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co. v DiGregorio, 811 F. 2d 1249, 1251, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1987); Gangitano v NN Investors Life Ins. Co., 733 F. Supp. 342 (S.D. Fla. 1990). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Florida this 22nd day of April, 1991.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT M. GROSS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

This case came before the Court on April 11, 1991 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial. Both sides were present through counsel. In this case, Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover payments made pursuant to her husband’s disability insurance policy. Plaintiff contends that Defendant cashed checks which it erroneously sent to Defendant’s husband after his death. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim. The counterclaim concerned a life insurance policy which had been provided to her husband as an incident of. his employment. In her counterclaim, Defendant contends that her husband was an “executive officer” of his [206]*206company entitled to a life insurance death benefit of $150,000. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s husband’s job status was that of an “employee” such that the $75,000 policy benefit which Defendant received was appropriate. Thus, the narrow factual issue of the counterclaim is the job classification of Defendant’s husband at the time he became disabled. Unlike a claim on a medical insurance plan issued pursuant to ERISA, which is equitable in nature, e.g., Blake v Union-Mutual Stock Life Ins. Co. of America, 906 F. 2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990), the issue in this case is a narrow factual issue typical of actions at law. If Defendant prevails on the disputed factual issue, her right to payment will be immediate and unconditional. See, Wardle v Central States Pension Fund, 627 F. 2d 820, 829 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112 (1981); Ovitz v Jefferies & Co., 553 F. Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1981). Accordingly, a right to a jury trial exists. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co. v DiGregorio, 811 F. 2d 1249, 1251, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1987); Gangitano v NN Investors Life Ins. Co., 733 F. Supp. 342 (S.D. Fla. 1990). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Florida this 22nd day of April, 1991.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwestern-national-life-insurance-v-david-flacirct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack