Casualty Co., the court of appeals determined that the physical contact requirement could be satisfied through indirect contact where an unidentified vehicle first impacts an intermediary vehicle that in turn collides with an insured claimant. 482 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex. Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1972, writ refd n.r.e.). The court of appeals held that “[wjhere a Car’ A strikes Car B and propels it into Car C, there is physical contact between Car A and Car C” within the meaning of an automobile insurance policy that required physical contact with an unidentified vehicle. Id. No Texas court, however, has ever relied on Latham to conclude that physical contact occurred where there was no “Car B.” C 5); Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 849 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1993, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Another court of appeals considering the
holding that the physical contact needed to support a direct claim against an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to nc gen stat  2027921 existed where the physical contact arose between the hitandrun vehicle and plaintiffs vehicle through intermediate vehicles involved in an unbroken chain collision which involved the hitandrun vehicle holding that a collision with the loading ramp of a trailer was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that collision between loading ramp that detached from trailer and insureds vehicle was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that water pump falling from truck and striking insured was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle