Wong v. Tabor

Summary

The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed a malicious prosecution action brought by a physician against an attorney who had filed a medical malpractice suit naming the physician as a defendant. The court held that the prior malpractice action was not shown to have ended by settlement and therefore could satisfy the favorable-termination requirement. Nevertheless, it affirmed judgment for the attorney because the physician failed to prove that the attorney lacked probable cause to initiate the malpractice claim.

Holdings

1. A prior civil proceeding may terminate in favor of the defendant when the plaintiff voluntarily withdraws or abandons the claim, and entry of summary judgment in the defendant's favor generally constitutes a favorable termination. A summary judgment entered after the plaintiff's attorney merely elects not to oppose the motion is not barred as a favorable termination absent evidence that the judgment was merely the formal vehicle for a settlement or compromise.
2. An attorney has probable cause to institute litigation when the attorney subjectively believes the client's claim merits litigation and that belief satisfies an objective standard: no competent and reasonable attorney familiar with the forum's law would consider the claim unworthy of litigation against the particular defendant based on the facts known when suit was commenced.
3. Wong failed to prove that Tabor lacked probable cause to initiate the action against him.
4. Assuming that liability may arise from wrongful continuation of a civil proceeding that was properly initiated, the circumstances supporting such liability are narrow; Wong did not establish liability on that theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prior medical-malpractice action terminated in Wong's favor for purposes of a malicious-prosecution claim when Tabor's office did not oppose Wong's motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether probable cause to institute the underlying action against Wong is determined by the court or jury and what standard governs an attorney's probable cause to bring a civil claim.
3. Whether Wong presented sufficient evidence that Tabor lacked probable cause to initiate or continue the medical-malpractice action.
4. Whether the judgment setting aside the jury's verdict could be affirmed on grounds preserved in Tabor's motion to correct errors.

Disposition

affirmed