that the "automobile must, in some manner, be involved in the accident”); Lebroke v. United States Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 146 N.H. 249, 769 A.2d 392, 394 (2001) (citing Peck with approval for the proposition that an auto accident requires, at the very least, the involvement of the automobile); Schweitzer v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 306 Pa.Super. 300, 452 A.2d 735 (1982) ("[T]here must be some connection, more than mere chance or happenstance, between the injuries sustained and the insured vehicle.”); Schulz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 930 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (explaining that mere fact that vehicle was involved is not sufficient; rather, claimant must show that injuries resulted from a motor vehicle accident); Tyrrell, 994 P.2d at 838 (<HOLDING>); 8 Russ & Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d §
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  holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg  4b12a holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling