Case Name: Leonard H. DANIEL, Appellant, v. HOLMES LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-05-01
Citations: 471 So. 2d 60
Docket Number: No. AT-463
Parties: Leonard H. DANIEL, Appellant, v. HOLMES LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS, BOOTH, SMITH, SHIVERS, WENTWORTH, JOA-NOS, THOMPSON, WIGGINTON, NIM-MONS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 471
Pages: 60–67

Head Matter:
Leonard H. DANIEL, Appellant, v. HOLMES LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Appellees.
No. AT-463.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 1, 1985.
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1985.
William A. Bald, of Pajcic, Pajcic, Dale & Bald, Jacksonville, for appellant.
William R. Swain and Richard M. Stoude-mire, of Webb, Swain & Watson, Jacksonville, for appellees Holmes Lumber and Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York.
Claude K. Slater, of Slater & Randle, Jacksonville, for appellees Holmes Lumber and American Mut. Ins. Co.

Opinion:
ON HEARING EN BANC
PER. CURIAM.
The court on its own motion considered this case en banc, Fla.R.App.P. 9.331, after a majority vote that hearing en banc was necessary under the rule, prior to release of a proposed panel opinion. Upon en banc consideration the court was evenly divided as to disposition of the appeal, Judges Mills, Booth, Wentworth, Joanos, Thompson and Barfield voting to affirm the deputy on the grounds that the claim of Leonard H. Daniel is barred by the limitations provision of Florida Statutes, § 440.19(1), and Judges Ervin, Smith, Shivers, Wiggin-ton, Nimmons and Zehmer voting to reverse. The effect of the vote is to affirm the deputy, Rule 9.331(a), supra.
ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS, BOOTH, SMITH, SHIVERS, WENTWORTH, JOA-NOS, THOMPSON, WIGGINTON, NIM-MONS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.