¶28 In determining that Café Arizona’s negligence arose out of assault or battery, Alea relied on well-established Washington case law. In Toll Bridge Authority v. Aetna Insurance Co., 54 Wn. App. 400, 404, 773 P.2d 906 (1989), the Court of Appeals interpreted the phrase “arising out of” in an insurance contract to mean “ ‘originating from’, ‘having its origin in’, ‘growing out of’, or ‘flowing from,’ ” id. (quoting Avemco Ins. Co. v. Mock, 44 Wn. App. 327, 329, 721 P.2d 34 (1986)), and expressly noted that it “has a broader meaning than ‘caused by’ or ‘resulted from,’ ” id. (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 14 Wn. App. 541, 543, 543 P.2d 645 (1975)). In McAllister v. Agora Syndicate, Inc., 103 Wn. App. 106, 11 P.3d 859 (2 3, 706-07, 850 P.2d 533 (1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶29 I agree that the foregoing cases are
holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity holding that  1658 applies to claims arising out of the 1991 act holding that the underlying action arose out of insureds exercise of his personal and political rights and not out of business pursuits and thus the policy exclusion for claims arising out of business pursuits did not apply because the exception to the exclusion for nonbusiness pursuits was applicable holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person