Opinion ID: 2633092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Tatums' Appeal

Text: Joe and Bertha Tatum's first point on appeal is that Joe and Bertha Tatum were not [n]ecessary [p]arties for the [t]rial. Their argument is not that the court erred in joining them as parties but that once the superior court ruled that Allstate was estopped from claiming fraud in the application process and estopped as well from contending that there was a gap in policy coverage, the issues surrounding check 722 should not have been submitted to the jury. Joe and Bertha Tatum claim that submitting these issues to the jury was an abuse of discretion because advisory opinions are usually to be avoided and further that it is the function of the court to simplify, not unnecessarily complicate, the issues for trial. In response Allstate argues that the questions as to when check 722 was mailed and whether Joe and Bertha Tatum committed fraud in trying to convince Allstate that it was mailed before the accident were not merely conditionally relevant. Allstate points to a superior court order issued subsequent to the court's decision concerning the conditional submission of the check 722 issues. The later order recognized that the check 722 issues would be relevant to other issues that would be tried, namely, whether the Tatums sought to defraud Allstate, whether the investigation was negligent, and whether Allstate's refusal to cover was in bad faith. The court stated in this order: Indeed, having evaluated the matter further, it is clear to the court that in fact the jury in all likelihood will have to address and resolve the factual matters raised by Joe and Bertha Tatum. Allstate is claiming that the Tatums tried to defraud Allstate by submitting altered checks 721 and 723  the jury cannot decide this issue without determining when those three checks actually were mailed. Similarly, the date on which Bertha Tatum actually mailed the check is an important element of the competence of Allstate's investigation of the matter, and both the date the check was mailed and the date that Allstate learned of the accident will undoubtedly figure into the jury's evaluation of whether Allstate denied coverage in bad faith. In so ruling the court did not abuse its discretion. Similarly, even if the issues surrounding check 722 were merely of conditional relevance, we would not find that the court abused its discretion by ordering them tried because doing so held the potential to avoid a second trial and involved only limited additional costs. [22]
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.
Joe and Bertha Tatum contend that they should have been entitled to an award of actual reasonable attorney's fees on their claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Our ruling that these claims were properly dismissed moots this contention. Joe and Bertha Tatum's final point on appeal is that Lancaster should not have been held to be a prevailing party because it was her conduct that caused Allstate to decline coverage. This argument is not well developed. The jury in its special verdict found that Lancaster was not negligent. The argument may be that Lancaster was necessarily negligent because Allstate wrongfully denied coverage. If so, its premise is incorrect in light of our conclusion that Allstate was justified in denying coverage. If another argument is intended, we are unable to determine what it is and it must be considered waived for insufficient briefing. [28] Jack Tatum claims on appeal that Allstate should have been held liable for the whole amount of the default judgments that he allowed to be taken against him. This point is moot in light of our conclusion that the policy did not cover the accident.