Homeowner’s insurance policy breach of contract action; Substantial compliance/performance; Gibson v Group Ins Co; The policy’s proof-of-loss requirement; Production-of-documents & examinations under oath (EUO) requirements; Waiver; Motions for directed verdict, JNOV & new trial; Whether a reasonable juror could have found that plaintiff did not comply with the policy’s conditions precedent; Whether evidence was admitted in violation of MRE 402, 403, 404, & 608(b); Jury instruction on the burden of establishing substantial compliance; M Civ JI 142.22; Evidence of the insurer’s policy interpretation

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-insured’s summary disposition motion as to compliance with the conditions precedent in her homeowner’s insurance policy because genuine issues of material fact existed. It also rejected her assertion that defendant-insurer (AAA) waived noncompliance as a defense. In addition, it upheld the trial court’s denial of her motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial, rejecting her claim that “no reasonable juror could have found that she did not comply with the conditions precedent.” The case arose from damage to her home and contents caused by water originating from a second-floor bathroom. The court first found that a “genuine issue of material fact existed whether plaintiff complied with the proof-of-loss requirement. The evidence” showed that she submitted two proofs of loss to AAA but “AAA sent correspondence several times rejecting these proofs because they were not on AAA’s form and were missing information. In return,” her correspondence to AAA showed “that she believed her proofs were compliant and she would not send new” ones. A genuine issue of material fact also “existed whether plaintiff complied with the production-of-document and EUO requirements.” The court determined that she failed to “establish as a matter of law that she timely submitted sufficient proofs of loss to AAA, that she submitted sufficient documentation, that she permitted AAA to inspect her contents, or that she complied with AAA’s requests for EUOs. Because a genuine issue of fact existed whether plaintiff complied with the conditions precedent, a question of fact also existed whether her complaint was premature. These issues were properly presented to the jury.” The court further held that the trial court did not err in denying her “motions for directed verdict or JNOV because reasonable minds could differ on” material facts. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her “a new trial because the record does not reveal that the evidence preponderated so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow it to stand.” The court also rejected her claims of evidentiary error and found that the challenged jury instruction on the burden of establishing substantial compliance with the conditions precedent “accurately instructed the jury[.]” Affirmed.