In Zurich Ins. Co. v. Peterson (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 438, the policies made no reference to dates, but stated only that "coverage is effective if the act or offense of malicious prosecution occurred or was committed during the policy period" (Peterson, supra, 188 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 444-445), language indistinguishable from that used in Everest's policy. The trial court ruled that the prosecution of a malicious lawsuit was a continuing occurrence which does not end until a favorable termination in the plaintiff's favor, and therefore coverage attached as long as the suit was pending during the policy period. (Id. at p. 444.) In reversing, the Court noted that while favorable termination was an essential factor in the successful prosecution of a malicious prosecution action, it was not determinative of the coverage issue. The Court held instead that, for purposes of determining when the "offense" of malicious prosecution was committed, the date the action was filed must control: "While some of the adverse consequences to the injured party will depend on whether a criminal prosecution is begun or a civil suit prosecuted, in each case a party's reputation is injured and legal expenses are incurred at the initiation of the malicious complaint. The fact that damages increase as the prosecution continues does not transform malicious prosecution into a continuing occurrence." (Peterson, supra, at p. 448.)