I have written before about why insurance companies use experts on insurance coverage, and why policyholders need to use them too. Indeed, there is little doubt in my mind that lawyers who aren’t specialists in the field often put their clients at a disadvantage when they engage insurance companies in disputes over insurance policies without bringing in someone with years of experience interpreting and arguing over the language in policies. This case here out of the Massachusetts Appeals Court yesterday, involving a seemingly routine dispute over which of two insurers should foot the bill for an accident involving an automobile, illustrates the point beautifully. The court’s decision – which placed the risk on an auto insurer and liberated a general liability insurer – pivoted on one issue, consisting of what exactly is meant by the three mundane words “arising out of.” Plain English words, of course, ones that we have all used since we were children and which everyone knows the meaning of. But to understand and interpret an insurance policy, you need to understand the gloss on those words that generations of insurance coverage litigation have grafted onto them and, indeed, to apply the relevant policy terms you have to give a more precise definition to that term than most individuals would bother to give to it in daily speech. Here’s how Massachusetts law now defines those three little words:

Our cases indicate that the expression "arising out of," both in coverage and exclusionary clauses,

"must be read expansively, incorporating a greater range of causation than that encompassed by proximate cause under tort law. Indeed, cases interpreting the phrase … suggest a causation more analogous to ‘but for’ causation, in which the court examining the exclusion inquires whether there would have been personal injuries, and a basis for the plaintiff’s suit, in the absence of the objectionable underlying conduct."

Bagley v. Monticello Ins. Co., 430 Mass. 454, 457 (1999), and cases cited.

The statement in Ruggerio, supra at 797, that "the expression [‘arising out of’] does not refer to all circumstances in which the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the involvement of a motor vehicle," does not weaken the broad standard of Bagley, and that standard has been quoted by the Supreme Judicial Court with approval. See Fuller v. First Financial Ins. Co., 448 Mass. 1, 6-7 (2006). Put another way, what is required for injuries to "arise out of" the loading of a vehicle is a reasonably apparent causal connection between the loading of the vehicle and the injury. See Ruggerio, supra at 798; Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Santos, 55 Mass.App.Ct. at 795.

Plain as day, right?