In Smith v. Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass'n, 441 Mich 181, 183; 490 NW2d 684 (1992), the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the insureds could not recover replacement cost absent actual repair or replacement, where the insurer denied coverage on the basis of arson and fraud, but where a jury found that no arson or fraud occurred. The insurer's denial of the claim was made in good faith, and the assertion of its defense no longer prevented the insureds from actually replacing the house. Id. at 190. Under those circumstances, Pollack was not followed. Id. at 189. However, the insurer would be required to pay replacement cost after the case if the insured actually repaired or replaced the home. Id. at 197.