Somewhere along the procedural line, lawyers started treating declaratory judgment actions like purely equitable matters, handled by judges alone. That assumption is wrong. South Carolina law still allows jury trials in declaratory judgment cases when the underlying issue is legal in nature. Rule 57 says so plainly.
Rule 57 Says What It Says
Rule 57 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure makes it clear that actions for declaratory judgment follow the same procedural rules as any other civil case. It also states that the right to a trial by jury may be demanded under the same circumstances and in the same manner as any other case. The simple fact that a party seeks declaratory relief does not take away the right to have a jury decide the facts.
It’s About Substance, Not Style
A declaratory judgment action is not automatically legal or equitable. Its character depends on the substance of the underlying controversy. If the issue would have been decided in an action at law had it been filed differently, then it remains an action at law now. Courts have long recognized that a contract dispute does not become equitable simply because someone asked for a declaration instead of damages.
Contract and Insurance Cases Are Legal and Jury-Eligible
When an insured and insurer dispute coverage under a policy, the question is one of contract interpretation. An insurance policy is a contract, and contract disputes are actions at law. That means either party has a constitutional right to a jury trial. The same principle applies to declaratory actions involving attorney fees, indemnity agreements, or membership purchase contracts. Calling it a declaratory judgment does not change what it really is.
The Constitutional Anchor
The South Carolina Constitution provides that the right to a trial by jury shall be preserved inviolate. That right extends to all actions that would have been triable by jury at common law. The declaratory judgment procedure, created later, did not erase that history. It simply offered a new way to clarify legal rights before someone files for damages.
Why Lawyers Overlook It
Over time, declaratory judgment actions became shorthand for “bench trial.” Many lawyers file them assuming the judge alone will decide the outcome. That is a habit, not a rule. Unless the issue is equitable, such as an injunction or specific performance, your client may still have a right to a jury. Failing to assert that right means giving it up.
Strategic Advantage
Demanding a jury in a declaratory action can change the entire posture of a case. Insurers often file declaratory suits seeking a ruling of no coverage. Defense counsel frequently treats those as bench trials without thinking twice. But invoking Rule 57 and demanding a jury under Rule 38 can change the leverage, expose fact issues, and make clear that contract interpretation is not reserved for judges alone.
Conclusion
Declaratory judgment procedure did not erase the right to a jury trial. It simply gave lawyers another way to assert it. If your case involves a contract, treat it like one. Demand a jury. Rule 57 gives you that right. The only reason it is forgotten is because too many lawyers stopped reading the rule after the first paragraph.
