Can denial of a summary judgment motion establish probable cause for litigation? Eskamani v. Auto-Owners Ins. Explained

In Eskamani v. Auto-Owners Ins., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment can establish probable cause as a matter of law in wrongful use of civil proceedings claims. The court’s analysis provides important guidance for practitioners handling malicious prosecution and discovery sanction issues.

Background and Facts

After a water damage incident at Eskamani’s café, she posted critical statements about Auto-Owners’ handling of her insurance claim. Auto-Owners subsequently filed a defamation suit against Eskamani, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Eskamani filed a limited motion for summary judgment challenging only whether her statements were defamatory and privileged, but did not challenge other elements like damages. The court denied this motion, but later granted Eskamani’s second motion for summary judgment on the remaining defamation per se claim. Eskamani then filed suit alleging wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah courts should adopt California’s “interim adverse judgment rule,” which holds that denial of a defendant’s summary judgment motion establishes probable cause for the underlying lawsuit. The court also addressed the willful act requirement for abuse of process claims and the proper application of discovery sanctions under Rules 26 and 37.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals declined to adopt the interim adverse judgment rule, reasoning that summary judgment motions may be denied for various reasons unrelated to case merit. When a motion challenges only limited elements of a claim, its denial provides no indication that the court found merit in unchallenged elements. The court reversed the wrongful use of civil proceedings dismissal but affirmed dismissal of the abuse of process claim, finding Eskamani failed to identify willful acts independent of legal process corroborating Auto-Owners’ alleged improper purpose.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of comprehensive summary judgment motions. Limited challenges to specific elements may leave practitioners vulnerable to later claims that the court’s denial established probable cause for the litigation. For discovery disputes, the court clarified that Rule 26(d)(4) provides automatic exclusion of untimely disclosed documents without requiring a predicate court order, while Rule 37 sanctions require violation of existing court orders. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between these procedural mechanisms when seeking discovery sanctions.