does not address the impact of a per curiam affirmance of our decision by the Supreme Court. 5 . Even if our dissenting colleague is correct in asserting, like Plaintiffs, that the Supreme Court did not expressly reject the approach adopted by the dissenting judge in Moore, a proposition with which we do not agree, we are still bound by our own decision in Moore, which recognizes that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21 requires direct or indirect physical contact between the vehicles driven by the insured and the vehicle driven by the hit-and-run driver (as compared to contact between the insured vehicle and some object that falls from or was thrown off of the vehicle driven by the hit-and-run driver). In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (<HOLDING>). HUNTER, Robert C., Judge, dissenting. I
holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding stare decisis applies when one court of appeals panel is faced with previous decision of different panel holding that a panel of the court of appeals is bound by a prior decision of another panel of the same court addressing the same question but in a different case unless overturned by an intervening decision from a higher court holding that a panel of this court is bound by a holding of a prior panel but is not bound by a prior panels dicta holding that where a panel of the court of appeals has decided the same issue albeit in a different case a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent unless it has been overturned by a higher court