{"id":2331,"date":"2026-10-20T19:07:40","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T19:07:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johnsontabor.com\/articles\/?p=2331"},"modified":"2026-10-20T19:07:40","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T19:07:40","slug":"nebraska-court-of-appeals-nationwide-cant-win-by-denying-its-own-policies-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johnsontabor.com\/articles\/nebraska-court-of-appeals-nationwide-cant-win-by-denying-its-own-policies-exist\/","title":{"rendered":"Nebraska Court of Appeals: Nationwide Can\u2019t Win by Denying Its Own Policies Exist"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Imagine filing a storm-damage claim with your insurance company, having that company send an adjuster to your home, adjust the loss, and mail you a check with its name on it — and then, once the dispute reaches a courtroom, hearing that same company say it never insured you at all. That is essentially what happened in a Nebraska case decided on October 20, 2026. In Millard Gutter Co. v. Nationwide Insurance<\/em>, No. A-25-559, the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment that Nationwide had won simply by denying, in its own court papers, that it issued the policies its own adjusters had handled. At Johnson, Tabor, & Johnson Law, LLC<\/a>, we handle property and insurance claims for Nebraska homeowners and businesses, and this decision is worth understanding. Here’s what happened and why it matters.<\/p>\n

The Background: A 2013 Storm and Eleven Homeowners<\/h6>\n

Millard Gutter Company, an Omaha roofing contractor, repaired homes damaged in a 2013 storm. Eleven of those homeowners signed assignments transferring their rights under their insurance policies to Millard Gutter, which is a common arrangement that lets a contractor deal directly with the insurer over payment for the repairs. When Millard Gutter believed Nationwide had underpaid, it sued Nationwide for breach of the insurance contracts, standing in the homeowners’ shoes.<\/p>\n

Nationwide’s response was striking. In its answer, it denied that it had issued a homeowner’s policy to any<\/strong> of the eleven homeowners. It then moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Millard Gutter had never produced a copy of a Nationwide policy for any of them, there could be no breach of contract.<\/p>\n

Nationwide Disavowed the Very Policies It Had Adjusted<\/h6>\n

What makes this case remarkable is what the record showed about how these claims were actually handled. According to the Court of Appeals, Millard Gutter submitted evidence showing that Nationwide personnel adjusted the claims at issue and that checks from “Nationwide” were issued on them. Several of the homeowners’ authorization forms listed Nationwide as their insurer, along with policy and claim numbers.<\/p>\n

Yet Nationwide never offered an affidavit, a deposition, an interrogatory answer, or a single document stating that it did not insure these homeowners. It did not offer testimony from anyone at the company saying the policies did not exist. It rested entirely on the denial in its own answer — a pleading written by its lawyers. Put plainly, an insurance company that had adjusted these claims and paid money on them asked a court to throw the case out on the theory that it was never the insurer, and offered no evidence to back that up.<\/p>\n

Remarkably, the district court in Douglas County went along with it. The judge found that Nationwide’s denial in its answer was enough to shift the burden to Millard Gutter, and because Millard Gutter had not put the actual policies into evidence, the court dismissed every claim. The court even acknowledged that it would have been “preferable” for Nationwide to submit an affidavit, but granted judgment anyway.<\/p>\n

What the Court of Appeals Held<\/h6>\n

The Court of Appeals reversed. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Pirtle explained the basic rule of Nebraska summary judgment practice: the party asking for summary judgment has to make a prima facie case<\/strong> by producing evidence<\/em> that would entitle it to judgment if uncontradicted at trial. Only then does the burden shift to the other side to come forward with its own evidence. Key points from the decision:<\/p>\n