Insurance Law-Personal Injury Liability Coverage-Malicious Prosecution-Duty to Defend

Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff issued an insurance policy to defendant covering personal injury arising from malicious prosecution. After defendant was sued for abuse of process, plaintiff agreed to defend defendant under a reservation of rights. Plaintiff then filed the present declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it owed no duty to defend defendant in the underlying lawsuit. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court should have abstained from resolving the merits pending resolution of the underlying lawsuit and that the policy covered the underlying lawsuit.

Where the policy listed specific torts that were covered, and the list did not include abuse of process, and where “malicious prosecution” did not include abuse of process within its scope, plaintiff owed no duty to defend defendant in the underlying action.

Judgment is affirmed.

General Star Indemnity Company v. Toy Quest Ltd. (MLW No. 84480/Case No. 25-1265 & 25-1284 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tunheim, J. (Stephen Adam Weisbrod, Washington, D.C. and Brandon R. Underwood, Des Moines, IA for appellants; Richard Snyder, Minneapolis, MN and Sarah B. Golwitzer, Des Moines, IA on the brief) (Cara Tseng Duffield, Washington, D.C. for appellee; Laura Jean Hanson, Minneapolis, MN and Lena Mirilovic, St. Simons Island, GA on the brief)