NORMAN WRIGHT V EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF US
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NORMAN WRIGHT,
UNPUBLISHED
July 9, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
GUARDSMARK, INC. and ARTHUR FRANCE,
No. 228946
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-903479-NI
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF
THE
UNITED
STATES,
EQUITABLE
VARIABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
DFNB CORPORATION, and GALBREATH
COMPANY,
Defendants.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants-appellees’
motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen
v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). A motion brought under MCR
2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court must
consider not only the pleadings, but also depositions, affidavits, admissions and other
documentary evidence, MCR 2.116(G)(5), and must give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to
the nonmoving party, being liberal in finding a genuine issue of material fact. Summary
disposition is appropriate only if the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence
establishing the existence of a material factual dispute. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich
446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
In a malicious prosecution action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving four elements:
“(1) that the defendant has initiated a criminal prosecution against him, (2) that the criminal
-1-
proceedings terminated in his favor, (3) that the private person who instituted or maintained the
prosecution lacked probable cause for his actions, and (4) that the action was undertaken with
malice or a purpose in instituting the criminal claim other than bringing the offender to justice.”
Matthews v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 456 Mich 365, 378; 572 NW2d 603 (1998).
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for malicious
prosecution for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the dismissal of the criminal charges at
the preliminary examination stage proved that probable cause was lacking. Because plaintiff has
not cited any case law or other authority in support of his argument, the issue has not been
preserved for appeal. Price v Long Realty, Inc, 199 Mich App 461, 467; 502 NW2d 337 (1993).
That aside, his claim is without merit. The element of probable cause refers to whether the
defendant had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had committed a crime. Matthews,
supra at 379. However, probable cause does not depend on actual guilt and there may be
probable cause to believe a person guilty of a crime when he was actually innocent. Thus, the
fact that the criminal proceedings were ultimately terminated in the plaintiff’s favor does not
mean that probable cause for initiating the proceedings was lacking. Drobczyk v Great Lakes
Steel Corp, 367 Mich 318, 322-323; 116 NW2d 736 (1962).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
