Burglary

Los Angeles CA

30 March, 2021

11:37 AM

Description

Procedural Posture Appellant insureds challenged a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of respondent insurance company in respondent's declaratory Penal Code 459 relief action, which sought a declaration that respondent had no duty to defend or indemnify appellants in a malicious prosecution action. Overview Appellants were sued by a former partner for malicious prosecution. They submitted the action for defense to their homeowner's insurance carrier, respondent. Respondent filed an action for declaratory relief regarding whether it had a duty to defend or indemnify appellants. The court granted their motion for summary judgment, and appellants filed an appeal. The court found that to recover for malicious prosecution there had to be a finding of malice. Malice was a willful act within the meaning of Cal. Ins. Code § 533, which prevented insurers from indemnifying an insured against liability for his own willful wrong. The obligation to defend was predicated upon liability for a loss covered by the policy. Therefore, since respondent could not be liable under the policy for damages predicated upon the tort of malicious prosecution, it was not obligated to defend such an action. Outcome The summary judgment in favor of respondent was affirmed