situs, not instrumentality, of assault); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Furo, 588 So.2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting a sufficient nexus between the automobile and injury exists only when it is shown the assailant desired either possession or use of the victim’s automobile). Trott’s mere presence in Hurst’s vehicle at the time of the shooting does not satisfy the nexus test. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Exilus, 608 So.2d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Further, no UM coverage exists because Finlayson’s gun, and not Hurst’s automobile, produced Trott’s injuries. Niglio v. Omaha Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 679 So.2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). No person could reasonably conclude Trott’s injuries were covered under his automobile liability policy. Race v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 542 So.2d 347 (Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). Final summary judgment in favor of St. Paul
holding that household exclusion clauses in policies of automobile liability insurance are contrary to public policy holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained 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 phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies