Get a lazy attorney and you may lose because of them.

In this insurance coverage dispute, the court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant-insurer where the plaintiff-insured failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff had a homeowner's insurance policy with defendant. Plaintiff filed his initial claim following a fire in the attic of his house. Defendant honored this claim as well a later claim for water damage and another for cracks in the foundation caused when plaintiff, in an attempt to conduct repairs, caused further damage to the home. However, when plaintiff filed a claim for cracking on the first floor of the house, defendant denied the claim as a preexisting condition based on the report of its expert. "The expert stated that if the first floor cracks were new, the exterior siding and trim, and the wood sill plate on top of the masonry walls would show damage, distortion, gaps, or lateral movement. He found none of these signs, so he determined that the cracks on the first floor had existed prior to the installation of the siding, and thus also pre-existed plaintiff's insurance policy." Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to state a claim and that the first floor cracks were a pre-existing condition. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. "At the hearing on the motion, the trial court declined to allow plaintiff to address the merits of the case, questioning him exclusively on the reasons for his failure to comply with discovery." Plaintiff stated that he had been called to Iraq due to a family emergency, and did not receive notice of the motion until he returned home approximately 10 days before the motion hearing. The trial court described his attitude as "lackadaisical" and found that he had abandoned his arguments by failing to file a responsive brief or to contact the trial court or defendant to request an adjournment, and his failure to comply with discovery. On this basis, the trial court granted defendant's motion. Several days after the ruling from the bench, but before a written order was entered, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration to which he attached multiple documents and photographs asserting that they created a question of material fact. The motion for reconsideration also asserted that defense counsel mailed the summary disposition motion with insufficient postage and attached a copy of a post office postage due notice. The trial court's written order granting the motion was entered. That same date, plaintiff filed a belated "Response to Defendant State Farm's Motion for Summary Disposition," which contained many of the same arguments and attachments contained in the motion for reconsideration. Before the trial court ruled on the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff filed a claim of appeal. Although this deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, the trial court, likely unaware that a claim of appeal had been filed, issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration, affirming its conclusion that dismissal was proper based on the failure to respond, and noting that there were no questions of material fact. Given "the confusing nature of the record" as to service of the motion for summary disposition, the court elected to review the summary disposition ruling on the merits and considered the entire record, including the materials submitted by plaintiff in his late-filed brief and in his motion for reconsideration. The court held that "dismissal was proper because plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence creating a question of material fact." He claimed that the photos he submitted in his late brief and in his motion for reconsideration raised a question of fact as to the origin of the cracks on the first floor of his house. However, there was no testimony in the record explaining the import of the photos or authenticating them, and the court concluded that on their face, the photos prove nothing. Further, plaintiff's theory of causation was "anything but clear." While at some points in the record it seemed that he was claiming that the first floor was damaged during his repair attempts, at other points he asserted that the first floor cracks were caused by the house settling after 165,000 gallons spilled by a burst pipe drained away under it. Further, neither of these theories was supported by any competent evidence and rested "solely upon plaintiff's own speculation." Affirmed.