Truck alleged that Federal committed fraud in prior litigation between the two insurers of a common insured, Moldex. In the prior litigation, Federal had alleged and maintained that its defense of Moldex was required under its policy. After the prior litigation settled, Federal switched positions and claimed that its policy didn’t require it to defend Moldex, but that it had done so voluntarily. Since voluntary payments by an insurer cannot be recouped under theories of contribution or indemnity between insurers, Federal’s new position would have sunk its claims in the prior litigation. Truck sued, saying that had it had relied on Federal’s prior position in entering into the settlement of the prior action. This decision affirms an order denying Federal’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. It holds that the gravamen of Truck’s complaint was facts pleaded or asserted in Federal’s pleadings and briefs in the prior litigation, thus showing that the case arose from Federal’s protected activity. However, Federal failed to show that Truck lacked a probability of success on the claim. The litigation privilege does not immunize extrinsic fraud. Here, fact questions existed as to whether Federal’s positions in the prior litigation constituted extrinsic fraud, keeping Truck from litigating the issue of voluntary payment in the prior litigation.