coverage. Ulrich, 839 P.2d at 948 (following Worthington v. State (Wyo. 1979), 598 P.2d 796, 807 (construing the phrase “arising out of the use” in the context of liability coverage)). The Worthington court described the natural consequences test as follows: In determining whether an injury arose out of use, the evidence must demonstrate that it was the natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of an insured vehicle, the causal connec tion being reasonably apparent. If the injury was directly caused by some independent or intervening cause wholly disassociated from, independent of, or remote from the use of the automobile, the injury cannot be held to arise out of its use. The resolution of the question necessarily depends to a g (Mo. App. Ct. 1994), 878 S.W.2d 853, 857 (<HOLDING>); Doe v. State Farm Mut. Fire & Cas. Co. (E.D.
holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that for requisite causal connection to exist the vehicle must be the instrumentality which caused the injury not merely a contribution which causes a condition which in turn causes the injury recognizing that discrimination causes injury to the whole community holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury