The Supreme Court said the issue here was which insurance carrier was to bear the cost of Arians's settlement. The auto carrier said that the mere fact that the plaintiff in a premises liability lawsuit struck his head on a car jack as he fell does not implicate the auto liability coverage. It also asserted that it is unfair, in a premises liability case, to shift responsibility to an auto insurer just because the victim struck something related to the repair of an auto while he was falling due to the dangerous conditions on the residence premises. The homeowners insurer countered that the accident arose out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle and so, it was proper to require the auto insurer to respond to the claim.

Did the injuries arise out of the maintenance of the auto? The Supreme Court took notice of the case law cited by the appellate court in which the words “arising out of” did not mean that the injury is a direct and proximate result of the use of an auto, but rather that the injury originated from or grew out of the use of an auto. In other words, there need be shown only a substantial nexus between the injury and the use of a vehicle in order for the obligation to provide coverage under an auto policy.

The Supreme Court agreed with this view and held that, in order to determine whether an injury arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there must indeed be a substantial nexus between the injury suffered and the asserted negligent maintenance or use. However, where the appellate court found this substantial nexus in the facts of this case, the Supreme Court did not. That court found that there was no allegation whatsoever that Costa in any way was negligent in the manner in which he repaired the flat tire. On the contrary, the failure to clear the driveway of snow and ice was the cause of Arians's fall and injuries; the fact that, in the act of falling, Arians struck a jack being used to repair a flat tire was an unfortunate but entirely incidental happenstance to the maintenance activity Costa was performing on the truck.

The judgment of the appeals court was reversed and the judgment of the trial court was reinstated.

Editor's Note: Whenever the phrase “arising out of” is found in insurance policies, the debate begins: what does that phrase mean? The views of the courts around the country vary, depending on the particular insurance coverage involved and the facts of the claim. In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the view that, in order to determine whether an injury arises out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there has to be a substantial nexus, a causal link, between the injury suffered and the asserted negligent maintenance or use of the motor vehicle. But, using this view as the theoretical guide post, that causal link still has to be established by the facts of the claim. The facts in this case did not do so, and the auto insurer was not required to cover the claim.