Most insurance agents have had clients who have wanted to respond aggressively after being targeted by, and then winning, a frivolous lawsuit. As pointed out in this Tech/Media Blog (see here), malicious prosecution is a means for payback that is rarely successful. The blog summarizes a case against an attorney in Montana. Interesting reading for those who might think the legal system favors plaintiffs.
According to the blog post, malicious prosecution is:
(1) malicious institution or pursuit of a legal action (2) that is brought without probable cause and for a purpose other than administration of justice (3) that was dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution (4) and that caused damages to the victim. Some states may also require proof of injury other than the normal downsides associated with being sued.
To summarize the malicious prosecution case in Montana: the case was triggered by a letter from a retired partner of a large and well-known law firm. The letter demanded that two professionals, who had been hired and had expressed their professional opinion, recant. When they refused, they were sued. After much legal wrangling, the suit against one of the professionals was dismissed, and that professional sued for malicious prosecution. And won.
The summary does not do justice to the post or the facts of the case - see the post here.