Nationwide tried to end a policyholder's coverage suit with a one-sentence motion. On August 18, 2026, a federal judge refused. 

The US District Court for the District of Columbia denied Nationwide's motion to dismiss a breach-of-contract claim over unpaid medical bills, keeping the case alive. 

The dispute dates to January 2023. An Arizona pilot was driving a Tesla Model 3 rented from Hertz when, his complaint says, the car "unexpectedly lost control after its anti-lock braking system suddenly engaged and its power-steering assistance simultaneously failed." The crash left him with severe injuries, heavy medical bills and, he says, an early end to his flying career. 

By his account, Hertz and Tesla "accepted liability for the underlying incident," leaving his insurer, Nationwide, to handle the claim. But when the bills came due, the complaint alleges the insurer refused to pay any part of them, despite having notice and an obligation to cover the claim. 

The pilot sued all three companies in D.C. Superior Court, and the defendants moved it to federal court. Hertz and Tesla answered. Nationwide moved to dismiss instead, saying the complaint failed to state a claim. 

That is where the insurer stumbled. Its entire legal argument, the court noted, read: "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12 and 8." Local rules require a dismissal motion to include "a statement of the specific points of law and authority that support the motion." The court said citing rule numbers alone fell "well short," and that the defect by itself justified denial. It also called the one-sentence argument "gossamer" and a "single, conclusory statement" that left the court to do counsel's work. 

Setting those issues aside, the court concluded the pilot had plausibly pleaded a breach-of-contract claim - a valid contract, a duty, a breach and damages. He alleged a "contractual relationship" as a "Nationwide insured," that the insurer "engaged in claims handling related to the incident" and had an "obligation" to pay his medical expenses, that it "failed to pay any portion" of them, and that he was harmed. 

The court took no position on the merits, accepting the allegations only for the motion and noting Nationwide "may well dispute" them. Nationwide has until September 2, 2026 to answer.