Mealey's (February 7, 2020, 12:25 PM EST) -- LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on Feb. 6 rejected an unmarried couple’s argument that a lower court erred when it ruled that an insurer did not breach its contract to the insureds by refusing to cover one member of the couple when they were both sued for malicious prosecution related to an underlying lawsuit, finding that the appellants have failed to raise triable issues of material fact that one of the appellants was an employee for purposes of coverage and that the insurer was required to treat the other appellant as a spouse (Gilbert Purcell, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., No. B292698, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 1, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 886)....