provision of the insurance policy, regardless of the policy language. Judicial precedent simply does not support such a result. See Harris, supra, 140 N.J.Super. at 12, 354 A.2d 704; Williams, supra, 99 N.J.Super. at 379, 240 A.2d 38. Moreover, just as a spouse’s per quod claim is based upon the injuries to the person actually involved in the accident, so do the claims of plaintiffs in wrongful death and survival actions necessarily arise out of the death of the person in the accident. To afford each cause of action separate coverage under the policy language at issue in this case would ignore the derivative nature of the two claims, which both arise out of Jeanine Galante’s death. See also McKinney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 188 Ill.2d 493, 243 Ill.Dec. 56, 722 N.E.2d 1125, 1129 (1999) (<HOLDING>); United States Auto. Ass’n v. Lilly, 217
holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured holding a negligence action arising out of an allterrain vehicle accident was a personal action holding that  1658 applies to claims arising out of the 1991 act holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity 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