Harbor Insurance v. Central National Insurance

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 3d 1029·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1787·211 Cal. Rptr. 902
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1985B004978California4,175 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lucas, J.

This appeal arises from cross-claims for declaratory relief whereby successive insurers of a defendant sued for malicious prosecution of a civil action sought determination as to which of them was (or were) obligated to defend and indemnify the insured. Holding that for insurance coverage purposes malicious prosecution is an “occurrence” that happens upon favorable termination of the maliciously prosecuted action, the trial court granted summary judgment exonerating two carriers who had insured the defendant during a period which commenced after that action was filed but ended before the date of favorable termination. Appellants, the defendant’s respective insurers when the maliciously prosecuted action was commenced and terminated, contend that all insurers during the pendency of the action should be held jointly responsible for coverage. We will reject this contention, together with respondents’ concurrent request that we define a touchstone date for insurance coverage of all malicious prosecution cases, but will conclude that the trial court’s determination that respondents’ policies did not afford coverage for this particular case was correct. Accordingly we…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.