Rome Healthcare LLC “Rome appeals a verdict entered against it arising from allegations by Peach Healthcare System, Inc., “Peach” that it breached a management agreement. Rome contends that the trial court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict on Peach’s breach of contract and conversion claims because there is no evidence that it did not produce the requested documents and, ultimately complied substantially with the contract terms by providing Peach with most of the requested documentation. It also argues that the trial court erred by prohibiting introduction of certain evidence and erred by instructing the jury that only substantial compliance was required to terminate the contract. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. 1. In determining whether a trial court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict, we construe the evidence and any doubts or ambiguities in favor of the verdict. “A directed verdict is not authorized unless there is no conflict in the evidence on any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions, demands a certain verdict.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Pope v. Professional Funding Corp. , 221 Ga. App. 552, 553 1 472 SE2d 116 1996; see OCGA § 9-11-50 a.
2. So construed, the evidence shows that in January of 1999, Rome entered into a Management Agreement with Peach to manage five nursing homes operated by Peach. Rome also managed and held the license to two other nursing homes not affiliated with Peach. The five Peach nursing homes were privately owned, but were leased and licensed to Peach.1 There were five separate Management Agreements, but all relevant portions of the contracts were identical. Pursuant to the Agreement, Rome would receive a management fee of seven percent of the net operating revenues per nursing home and the remaining operating revenues, minus expenses, would be delivered to Peach.
