In Lee v. Crusader Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1750, the plaintiffs suffered a fire loss and made an insurance claim. An investigator from the fire department informed the insurer that the plaintiffs were under investigation for arson. When criminal charges were filed, the insurer told the plaintiffs that it would not accept their proof of loss until the charges were resolved. Eventually, for reasons that were not clear, the insurer began to suspect the plaintiffs were not guilty of arson and the prosecution might not be successful. After the plaintiffs were acquitted, they filed a civil action for bad faith. Under the circumstances presented, the Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The court concluded that the criminal prosecution, with the formidable hurdles that prosecutorial authorities must clear in order to instigate and pursue a criminal prosecution, provided a reasonable basis for deferring action on the claim. ( Lee v. Crusader Ins. Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1759.) The court said: "It is irrelevant that the insurer may suspect or even have come to the conclusion that acquittal is likely. In such a situation deferral of the claim is not only reasonable, but is the only course that satisfies the policy expressed in Insurance Code section 533, which relieves an insurer from liability 'for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured.'" ( Id. at p. 1760.)