Miletak v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Background

Nick Miletak, who is representing himself, brought a declaratory judgment action against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and AMCO Insurance Company. The dispute concerns whether the insurers had a duty to defend him in an ongoing California Court of Appeal matter and to indemnify him for a judgment arising from a malicious-prosecution lawsuit.

The insurance policy was purchased by Miletak’s mother in the early 2000s. The defendants said the policy named Miletak’s mother and his brother as insureds and covered other residents at the insured location. Miletak argued that he was also a named insured; the defendants argued that, if he was covered, he was covered only as a resident. The parties agreed that the policy included personal-injury coverage for malicious prosecution and required timely written notice of an occurrence or claim.

Royal Coach Tours sued Miletak for malicious prosecution in March 2020 after an earlier lawsuit brought by Miletak. A California state-court jury later awarded Royal Coach $257,197.53, including compensatory, reputational-harm, and exemplary damages. Miletak appealed, and the appeal was ongoing when this federal case was considered.

Miletak contacted the defendants’ claims department on February 4, 2022. The parties disputed what was said during that call and whether it satisfied the policy’s notice requirements. Miletak later submitted a written claim on October 17, 2024. The defendants denied coverage because of untimely notice, asserting that the delay prevented them from investigating, hiring defense counsel, developing defenses, and attempting settlement.

Preliminary Injunction

The court denied Miletak’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before final judgment, and the moving party must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the injunction, favorable balancing of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

The court concluded that Miletak had not shown likely success. It found that he had not shown that the February 2022 call satisfied the policy’s specific notice requirements. Even if the call qualified as notice, it occurred more than a year and a half after the malicious-prosecution action began. Applying California’s notice-prejudice rule, the court concluded that the defendants had shown prejudice because the delay deprived them of opportunities to defend, investigate, reduce potential liability, and possibly settle for less than the eventual judgment.

The court also concluded that Miletak had not shown irreparable harm. Although he said he might have to proceed without counsel and might have to pay the state-court judgment, the court stated that he had not shown that he could not participate in the appeal or obtain representation by other means. The court treated the balance-of-hardships and public-interest factors as neutral. It therefore denied the preliminary-injunction motion.

Summary Judgment

The court denied Miletak’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Miletak identified facts he claimed were undisputed, including that he was a named insured, that malicious prosecution was covered, that he contacted the claims department in February 2022, and that the defendants denied coverage. But he did not support those assertions with citations to the record, as required by the federal summary-judgment rule. The court also found genuine factual disputes about whether Miletak gave timely notice and whether the defendants were prejudiced by any delay. Those disputes independently prevented summary judgment.

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

The court denied Miletak’s motion to strike several of the defendants’ affirmative defenses. A motion to strike asks the court to remove a defense that is insufficient, redundant, immaterial, irrelevant, or scandalous. The court explained that such motions are generally disfavored and should not be granted unless the challenged matter could have no possible bearing on the litigation. Because Miletak had not shown that removing the defenses would meaningfully streamline the case, the court denied the motion.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Miletak’s motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment and to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses are denied. The opinion does not enter final judgment on the insurance-coverage dispute.