Carl Zook sued a nightclub and its employees over an altercation that generated claims for false imprisonment, battery, negligence, malicious prosecution, and malicious arrest. He also sought a declaration concerning insurance coverage from Arch Specialty Insurance Company. The trial court granted Arch summary judgment on several coverage and defense issues, and a related insured appealed separately. The Court of Appeals held that Arch was not entitled to judgment on Zook’s malicious-prosecution claim because the record did not establish the insurer’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court also reversed summary judgment on a claim involving the policy’s coverage for bodily injury and the underlying allegations, while leaving other portions of the trial court’s rulings intact. The insured’s separate appeal became moot to the extent it challenged the same ruling because the court had already reversed that ruling in Zook’s appeal. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed the related appeal as moot. The panel concurred.