6.2.1 "Arising Out Of"

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Arizona's Financial Responsibility Act requires insurance companies issuing automobile liability insurance policies to insure "against loss from liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of automobiles.^[14] The typical insuring agreement invokes coverage where the bodily injury or property damage "arises out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of a covered automobile. In order to understand the scope of the coverage, each of the component phrases must be analyzed.

The words "arising out of" are "broad, general, and comprehensive terms effecting broad coverage."^[15] These words import a concept of causation or a causal relationship between the accident and the automobile. The court in Brenner v. Aetna Ins. Co. observed:

"All the cases agree that a causal relationship or connection must exist between an accident or injury and the ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle in order for the accident or injury to come within the meaning of the clause 'arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use' of a vehicle, and where such causal connection or relation is absent coverage will be denied."^[16]

The causal connection need not equate to proximate cause.^[17] "[I]t is not necessary that the injury be directly and proximately caused, in the strict legal sense, by the activities of the motor vehicle itself."^[18]

The mere fact that the injury occurred in the automobile does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that there is coverage. For example, in Brenner, one of the vehicle passengers was "toying" with a pistol, which he accidentally discharged. The bullet struck Brenner. The court of appeals held that the injury did not result from the manner of the operation or use of the vehicle even though the injury occurred while the vehicle was in use. The court in Brenner observed:

From the standpoint of causation, this injury could have occurred in the woods, in a hunting lodge, or in a house. That the situs of the accident was in fact within a motor vehicle and the fact that both the tort-feasor and the injured party were "using" the car at the time does not make the injury one "arising out of the * * * use" of the vehicle. Nor did the injury result from any incident of "ownership" of the vehicle.^[19]

Similarly, in Love v. Farmers Insurance Group,^[20] the court held that there was no causal connection between the insured's death and vehicle use. In Love, the insured was abducted in his automobile. The insured's death occurred when one of his assailants beat him to death by using a candelabrum found in the insured's automobile while the other assailant drove the automobile to a remote spot in the desert. The court reasoned that the "attack could have occurred outside the car as easily as inside the car."^[21]

In Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.,^[22] a passenger in the insured vehicle was shot when the insured driver reached behind the seat of his pickup truck to get his rifle. The gun accidentally discharged...