v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 750 (Tex.2006). 4 . Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995). 5 . 243 S.W.3d at 8. 6 . Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Tex.1999). 7 . 243 S.W.3d at 8 (citing McDonald v. So. County Mut. Ins. Co., 176 S.W.3d 464, 471 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); McKiddy v. Trinity Lloyd’s Ins. Co., 155 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied); Ins. Co. of the State of Penn. v. Pearson, No. 07-03-0340-CV, 2004 WL 2053285 at *1 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Sept.7, 2004, no pet.); Schulz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 930 S.W.2d 872, 875-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.); Fulton v. T 61, 63 (1986) (same). 11 . See Moherek v. Tucker, 69 Wis.2d 41, 230 N.W.2d 148, 152 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 12 . See Dawes v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii,
holding that parked police vehicle could not constitute other traffic holding plaintiff had not severed his relationship with the vehicle while holding spare tire between cars so one could push the other without scratching their bumpers holding that the presence of a gun in a cars passenger compartment supported the possibility that the cars trunk contained ammunition additional weapons andor other contraband 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 that vehicle owner not present in the vehicle when it was stopped had not suffered interference with his possessory interest and could not challenge the constitutionality of the stop