Roberts

Roberts v. SENTRY LIFE INSURANCE

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1011·76 Cal. App. 4th 375·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408·99 Daily Journal DAR 11797·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9214
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 1999B125515California2,966 words

Opinion

Opinion

Neal, J.

Summary

In an action alleging malicious prosecution of an earlier suit, evidence that the trial court in the earlier suit denied a defense summary judgment motion establishes that there was probable cause to bring the earlier suit.

Facts and Trial Court Proceedings

Appellants Alan Roberts, a doctor, and Alan Roberts M.D., Inc., Roberts’s wholly owned personal corporation, were previously sued in federal court by respondent Sentry Life Insurance Company, represented by Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, a now defunct law firm whose partners also are respondents in this appeal. Sentry asserted both contract and tort claims, the latter for fraud and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

After Roberts won the federal court suit, he brought this action in superior court claiming that respondents maliciously prosecuted their federal tort claims.

Respondents moved for summary judgment. The evidence submitted to the trial court is summarized as follows.

In 1978 Sentry insured Roberts under two group disability policies for American Medical Association members. The policies obliged Sentry to pay Roberts $3,000 per month when totally disabled, but this payment was to…

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.