Saad Yousif Ishoo v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan

── Saad Yousif Ishoo v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAAD YOUSIF ISHOO and MARENA SAAD UNPUBLISHED ISHOO, May 21, 2026 9:44 AM Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 370759 Wayne Circuit Court FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE LC No. 22-000973-NI COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee. Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BORRELLO and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal by right the trial court’s stipulated order of dismissal.1 We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arose after plaintiffs sought uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from defendant for a hit-and-run accident. Relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs’ insurance policy with defendant mandated that they permit defendant to inspect their vehicle within 15 days of the accident and that they submit to examinations under oath (EUO) as required by defendant. The policy further provided that “[n]o 1 We initially dismissed plaintiffs’ claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Sandoval v Farmers Ins Exch, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (Docket Nos. 361166 and 361176), vacated by 20 NW3d 588 (Mich, 2025). Ishoo v Farm Bureau Ben Ins Co of Mich, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 10, 2024 (Docket No. 370759). Our Supreme Court vacated that order and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of this Court’s recent decision in Jaber v P & P Hospitality, LLC, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 363572) (Jaber II). As will be discussed below, this case is distinct from Jaber, and we conclude that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ appeal. -1- legal action may be brought against [defendant] until . . . there has been full compliance with all the terms of this policy[.]” Defendant requested to conduct an inspection of plaintiffs’ car shortly after the 15-day time frame had passed, but plaintiffs did not respond. They later reported that they gave the car away within a week of the accident because the repair costs exceeded its value. Defendant also scheduled an EUO for plaintiffs, and instructed that, if they could not attend on the scheduled date, they should reach out “to arrange for a mutually agreeable time and date for the examination[.]” Plaintiffs did not reach out to inform defendant of any scheduling problems. Instead, they filed the instant lawsuit. Defendant moved for partial summary disposition of plaintiffs’ UM/UIM claims under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). It argued that plaintiffs failed to comply with the car-inspection and EUO-attendance provisions of the policy, which precluded suit. The trial court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ UM/UIM claims. The parties continued litigating plaintiffs’ remaining PIP claims but ultimately stipulated to dismissal. The stipulated order provided that plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, but did not include any reservation of appellate rights. Plaintiffs now appeal. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo “[w]hether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal . . . .” Varran v Granneman (On Remand), 312 Mich App 591, 598; 880 NW2d 242 (2015). III. ANALYSIS Defendant argues that this Co