Opinion
Docket No. 146900. COA No. 296791.
2013-11-6
HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter–Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee, v. MOSHER, DOLAN, CATALDO & KELLY, INC., Defendant/Counter–Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, and Lisa Feinbloom and David Feinbloom, Defendants.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2013 WL 1149790.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues: (1) which insurance policy or policies govern coverage in this case; and (2) whether any exclusions in the governing policy or policies apply. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that it was bound by the law of the case to accept a prior panel's implicit determination that the policy exclusions do not apply. The prior panel did not make any implicit or explicit determination regarding the application of the policy exclusions. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.