("[I]n order for a loss to 'arise out of’ the use of a motor vehicle, for the purpose of determining whether personal injury protection coverage exists, 'some nexus’ between the vehicle and the injury is all that is required.”); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 802 P.2d 1122, 1124 (Colo.Ct.App.1990) ("A 'but-for’ test is to be applied in determining whether this requisite causal relationship exists between the injury and the use of an insured vehicle.”); Gray v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 A.2d 778, 780 (Del.Super.Ct.1995) (to constitute an "accident involving a motor vehicle” and thus qualify for PIP coverage, a causal connection is required between the use of the vehicle and the injury); Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Patrick, 16 Kan.App.2d 26, 819 P.2d 1233, 1236 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Putkamer, 563 N.W.2d at 687 (finding that
holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that there must be some causal connection between the accident and the automobile allegedly involved for coverage to exist holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury