protecting conscientious and thoughtful motorists from financial loss”); see also Putkamer v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of Am., 454 Mich. 626, 563 N.W.2d 683, 686 (1997) (“The no-fault act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed in favor of the persons who are intended to benefit from it.”); 8D Apple-man on Insurance Law & Practice § 5171.55 (2003 Supp.) (“The terms [of no-fault and personal injury protection] are construed liberally to extend coverage broadly.”). Additionally, we note that the Texas Department of Insurance does not contend that the meaning of “motor vehicle accident” varies from one insurance provision to another and urges the Court to find PIP coverage in this case. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). Third, Texas Farm Bureau insists that
recognizing this texas rule holding that claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the texas department of insurance because they concern the claims handling process recognizing that the texas department of insurances expertise in the insurance trade is unquestionable holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied recognizing the same rule in texas courts