Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1986
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 2,2
• Citation: Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 758 P.2d 1312, 157 Ariz. 410 (Ariz. App. 1986)
• Parties: Samuel L. BRADSHAW and Deborah A. Bradshaw, husband and wife, Plaintiffs- Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee. 5821.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 1312

758 P.2d 1312

157 Ariz. 410

Samuel L. BRADSHAW and Deborah A. Bradshaw, husband and wife, Plaintiffs- Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 5821.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department B.

Oct. 23, 1986.

Thur, Dawson & O'Sullivan by Steven C. Dawson & Calvin C. Thur, Scottsdale, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants.

O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears by Scott E. Boehm & Ralph E. Hunsaker, Phoenix, for defendant-appellant/cross-appellee.

OPINION

LIVERMORE, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, Samuel Bradshaw, a deputy sheriff, was responding to an emergency on the evening of January 27, 1980.He was driving 65 miles per hour on a road near residential areas.The posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour.A car, driven by William Ivie, pulled into the road in front of Bradshaw.In the resulting collision, Ivie was killed and Bradshaw was seriously injured.Bradshaw's attorneys filed a claim with Ivie's insurer, defendantState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and an additional claim against Ivie's estate.In its investigation, State Farm discovered a conflict among the eye witnesses as to whether Bradshaw had been utilizing his siren.Concluding that there was evidence that Bradshaw had been negligent, and with the consent of Ivie's widow, State Farm induced the attorney it hired to represent the Ivies to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of Mrs. Ivie.Bradshaw counterclaimed for his injuries.After Mrs. Ivie's death, that suit was settled by State Farm paying Bradshaw $60,000.Claiming that State Farm had caused the filing of the wrongful death suit solely to gain a tactical advantage in settling the Bradshaw claim, Bradshaw then sued for malicious prosecution.State Farm appeals from a jury award of $40,000 compensatory damages and $2,000,000 (later remitted to $1,000,000) punitive damages.We reverse.

In order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim, plaintiff must establish that the preceding action was brought without probable cause.As put by Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 675(1977)"one ... has probable cause if he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and ... that under those facts the claim may be valid under the applicable law...."Whether probable cause exists is a matter of law for the court, Bird v. Rothman, 128 Ariz. 599, 627 P.2d 1097(App.1981), and we need not, therefore, defer to the trial court's findings.

Applying these principles to the facts in this action, we can determine as a matter of law that probable cause for the wrongful death action existed.Two eye witnesses said that Bradshaw did not have his siren on.Driving at high speed near residential areas without a siren could reasonably be found to be negligent.It would also arguably be in violation of A.R.S. § 28-624 and thus negligent.This evidence would defeat an...