Opinion ID: 2633092
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the court err in dismissing the counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution?

Text: Joe and Bertha Tatum's second point on appeal is that the court erred in dismissing their counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against Allstate. The underlying conduct they complained of relates to Allstate's deposition of them in November 2002. The superior court, as noted, found that Allstate breached its duty to defend the Tatums because it did not notify them prior to the deposition that the information it would seek might be used to void the policy altogether. That breach prejudiced the Tatums because Allstate was able to obtain information it later used to void the policy. There are two elements to the tort of abuse of process: an ulterior purpose and a `willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.'  [23] The second element requires `some overt act done in addition to the initiating of the suit.' [24] The trial court ruled that the deposition questions concerning the application did not satisfy the willful act element of the tort. [25] We agree. For an insurer to ask its insured questions about an application for insurance without advance warning but after it has denied coverage on other grounds is not a sufficient deviation from acceptable litigation objectives to amount to an abuse of process. [26] With respect to malicious prosecution, favorable termination of the proceeding alleged to be malicious is a requirement for any such claim. [27] The trial court properly ruled that this element had not been satisfied.