My insurance coverage friends will appreciate this one: The Texas Supreme Court has held that there is "no significant distinction" between an automobile insurance policy that provide coverage for bodily injury "arising out of" ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto and a policy that provides coverage for bodily injury "resulting from" ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto.
Lancer Insurance Company v. Garcia Holiday Tours, is a case in which Lancer refused to provide a defense and indemnity to Garcia for an underlying lawusit involving the transmission of a communicable disease. Garcia was sued after one of its bus drivers contracted tuberculosis and some of the passengers who rode with the driver tested positive for TB. Lancer denied coverage and the underlying case went to trial. A jury found the bus company liable and awarded over $5 million.
Garcia then sued Lancer for insurance coverage under its business auto policy that provided coverage for damages Garcia was obligated to pay because of bodily injury caused by an accident and resulting from ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto. In holding that there was no coverage, the supreme court distinguished between circumstances in which the vehicle is merely the situs of an incident that could have occured anywhere and those in which the vehicle plays a part in producing the injury. Here, the court noted that the transmission of TB could have occurred in any closed environment and therefore the bus was not instrumental to producing the injuries. The court’s opinion may be found here.