On remand, the Court of Appeals applied a two-pronged test and concluded that Robert acted criminally because his actions constituted manslaughter. The court reasoned that the applicability of the exclusion "turns on whether LaBelle's death was reasonably expected to result from Robert's criminal act," and then concluded that "a person who points a gun at another person's face and intentionally pulls the trigger without checking to see whether the gun is loaded can reasonably expect that injury will result." This decision was then appealed.

 The Michigan Supreme Court found that, on the basis of undisputed facts, the shooting was an accident and triggered Allstate's liability. The Court found "…nothing in the record to reasonably support a conclusion that, [Robert] believed the gun was loaded, or even contemplated that there was any possibility that it was loaded when he pulled the trigger. Even the insurer, acknowledged that Robert believed the firearm was unloaded…." To this set of facts the Court concluded that Robert's expectation that no bodily harm would result from an unloaded gun was reasonable. The Court found that the proper test was to first determine what Robert actually believed about the gun being loaded, not what a reasonable third party would have believed on that issue. Then, using that belief as a starting point, determine in the second step if a reasonable person, possessed of Robert's belief, would have expected bodily harm to result from pulling the trigger. They found that reasonable minds agreed that an unloaded gun will not fire a shot, and granted summary disposition to defendants.

 The Court held that there was no question of fact whether Kevin's death was the reasonably expected result of Robert's act and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The case was again remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.