Peterson

Zurich Insurance v. Peterson

Good Law
188 Cal. App. 3d 438·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2393·232 Cal. Rptr. 807
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1986Civ. 24056California3,864 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carr, J.

In this appeal from a summary judgment, we determine when, for purposes of insurance coverage, an act or offense of malicious prosecution is “committed.” Is it the date on which the maliciously prosecuted action was filed? Or, as held by the trial court herein, does the “when” period encompass the entire time from the initiation of the maliciously prosecuted action by the filing of the complaint to the termination by final judgment, with joint and several liability on all insurers providing coverage within this time frame? We conclude that under the insurance policy provisions herein, the controlling date is the date of filing the complaint. This necessarily engenders the further finding that, for insurance purposes, malicious prosecution is not a continuing tort.

Respondent Winford C. Peterson (Peterson) was awarded damages of $2.3 million in a malicious prosecution action against Tri-Tool, Inc. (TriTool). A dispute then arose as to whether Tri-Tool’s successive insurers during the pendency of the malicious prosecution action were jointly and severally liable for costs of defending Tri-Tool and for satisfying the Peterson judgment.

Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich) and…

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.