In Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2002) 77 Cal.App.4th 1442, the insureds were facing a suit for malicious prosecution. Years before, they had asked the insurer's agent to provide a policy which included such coverage, which was replacement coverage for a policy that was not being renewed. The insureds asked for the replacement coverage in 1986, but did not bring suit until 1993, which was the first time they made a claim for malicious prosecution coverage and tendered the matter to their insurer, but were denied coverage. (Id. at pp. 1469-1470) There was evidence that the agent failed to procure the requested coverage at the outset. (Id. at p. 1463.) 2. In Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1442, an insured provided a copy of his policy to an agent of Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck) and asked the agent to find a similar policy but with higher limits. Before purchasing the policy, the insured did not read it, but he relied on the agent's assurances it would provide the same coverage. (Id. at p. 1448.) When the insured was sued for malicious prosecution, he learned the policy was not the same and Truck would not provide coverage for that kind of claim. The insured filed a lawsuit against Truck and the agent. (Id. at p. 1449.) In Butcher, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, but the appellate court reversed this ruling based on its determination there was a triable issue of material fact with respect to the causes of action for reformation and negligent misrepresentation, among others. (Butcher, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1465.) In addition, the Butcher court rejected Truck's and the agent's argument the claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Id. at pp. 1469-1470.) It concluded, "In the case at bar, although the agent delivered the Truck policy that did not conform with his promise in 1986, the fact of any damage at all was completely uncertain until Truck told the insured it would not defend them in the malicious prosecution action. Until the malicious prosecution action was filed and served, and appellants were required to defend, whether the omission of personal injury coverage would harm them at all was a mere possibility. That remained the case until Truck refused to defend the . . . action, which occurred April 1, 1993, and appellants filed suit against Truck and Meyer in October 1994, less than two years later." (Ibid.) The Court in Butcher concluded the insured suffered no actual damage from the broker's misconduct until Truck refused to defend the insured. In short, the court reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer. It did so because the plaintiffs presented evidence that they specifically asked the agent to obtain a policy that covered liability for personal injury arising out of malicious prosecution, and the agent negligently misled them into thinking that he had done so. (Butcher, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1446-1448.) That evidence raised a triable issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. (Id. at p. 1465.)