I demand a jury trial! (But not correctly, it turns out)

In a diversity action over the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the Eleventh Circuit (Carnes, Pryor, and district judge Dowd) found that a jury demand made in the amended answer by the insured was not timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, and that the insured's counterclaim raising the same issues and making a jury demand did not constitute "new issues" under Rule 38 so as to make a timely jury demand. Among other things, the Court goes on to discuss the law of the case doctrine. For all the details, see Mega Life v. Pieniozek, No. 08-14414 (Oct. 19, 2009).