with an insured vehicle is an issue of first impression for our Court, but our courts of appeals have decided a number of cases establishing some guiding principles. In Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., for example, the court held that when an unknown vehicle strikes another vehicle, which in turn strikes the insured, the requirements of the section are met and coverage is afforded. 482 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1972, writ ref d n.r.e.). However, collisions with cargo that has fallen from an unidentified vehicle or with debris in the roadway have been held not to constitute “actual physical contact” with a “motor vehicle.” Deville, 988 S.W.2d at 333; Williams, 849 S.W.2d at 861; Smith, 2003 WL 21391534, at *3, 2003 Tex.App. LEXIS 5056, at *7 (<HOLDING>). Thus, our courts of appeals have reasonably
holding that water pump falling from truck and striking insured was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that a collision with the loading ramp of a trailer was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality notwithstanding the fact that it meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle 