Opinion
No. 116474 (76).
April 17, 2001.
COA: 204840, Wayne CC: 96-635359-CZ.
On order of the Corut, the application for leave to appeal is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE, in part, the November 12, 1999, decision of the Court of Appeals and REMAND the case to that court for consideration of plaintiffs' remaining issues. The Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that the Insurance Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction over a policyholder's claim against a mutual insurance company for the distribution of excess surplus. "The power and authority to be exercised by boards or commissions must be conferred by clear and unmistakable language, since a doubtful power does not exist." Consumers Power Co vPublic Service Comm, 460 Mich. 148, 155-156 (1999), quoting Mason Co Civic Research Council v Mason Co, 343 Mich. 313, 326-327 (1955). MCL 500.403; MSA 24.1403, MCL 500.410; MSA 24.1410, and MCL 500.810; MSA 24.1810 do not clearly grant the Insurance Commissioner exclusive jurisdiction over a claim for distribution of surplus. Cf. Blue Cross Blue Shield v Insurance Commissioner, 403 Mich. 399, 430-432 (1978).
The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is also considered and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reveiwed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.