In Pollock v. Fire Ins Exchange, 167 Mich App 415; 423 NW2d 234 (1988), the plaintiff's home was damaged by fire. The plaintiff filed a claim of loss with the defendant insurance company. The defendant denied the claim. The defendant also refused to appoint an appraiser, causing the plaintiff to file suit against the defendant. Twenty-five months after the plaintiff filed her claim, the defendant paid the plaintiff $ 30,000 ($ 20,000 for the structure and $ 10,000 for contents). Id. at 416. The replacement cost of the house was appraised at $ 52,445. The plaintiff sought the replacement cost value even though she had not repaired, replaced, or rebuilt her house. The defendant argued that the policy required that the house be actually repaired or replaced before replacement cost benefits were paid. The Court held that the defendant's lack of good-faith processing of the claim hindered the plaintiff from complying with the condition of repairing or replacing the house. Id. at 421-422. The Court noted that the defendant "did as much as possible to hinder plaintiff and delay or prevent the payment of the claim." Id. at 422. The Court held that, under those circumstances, the defendant was precluded from asserting the policy condition as a defense to payment of replacement cost. In Pollock, the Court stated that, had the insurer worked with the insured to allow them to repair or replace the building, rather than attempting to hinder any payment of the claim, "a different result might be called for." Id. at 422.