Duron v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.
2:22-cv-01195
E.D. Cal.May 15, 2025Background
- Miguel Angel Duron, Jr. owned Miggy’s Trucking Delivery Service LLC, which operated as a delivery company in California.
- California law requires active liability insurance for trucking companies to maintain a valid Motor Carrier Permit (MCP); a lapse leads to immediate suspension and imposes a $150 reinstatement fee for reinstatement.
- Miggy’s Trucking switched insurance providers multiple times; a coverage gap occurred between May 4 and May 15, 2020, during which their MCP was suspended by the DMV.
- The plaintiffs alleged that this coverage lapse, and resultant suspension, caused them to lose a contract, accrue fines, and ultimately dissolve their business.
- The defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance, only became the insurer on May 15, 2020—after the gap and permit suspension had already occurred.
- Plaintiffs brought five claims against Nationwide: professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing, and IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation for business injuries | Nationwide's delay directly caused MCP suspension and injuries | MCP suspension occurred before Nationwide's policy began; no causation | No causation; summary judgment granted for defendant |
| Responsibility for $150 reinstatement fee | Nationwide delays necessitated the fee | Fee required due to statutory lapse in coverage; not Nationwide's fault | Reinstatement fee not attributable to Nationwide |
| Liability for prior agent’s conduct | Actions of Steven Hill (insurance broker) contributed to injury | Steven Hill was not Nationwide’s agent/principal at relevant times | Actions of Hill irrelevant to Nationwide’s liability |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove claims | Plaintiff declarations alleged disputes over material facts | Deposition and DMV evidence show no disputed material facts | Plaintiff’s evidence insufficient; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: must be genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party entitled to judgment if nonmoving party fails to show essential element)
- Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 577 F.3d 989 (party cannot create a factual issue by contradicting previous deposition testimony)