Bureau argues that we should reject the above-quoted language as dicta. The dissenting justices similarly try to avoid Lindsey’s holding by stating that our discussion regarding the requirement of an “auto acc mulgating and enforcing standard and uniform insurance policies, amicus curiae Texas Department of Insurance, agrees that Lindsey is indistinguishable and governs this case. Second, Texas Farm Bureau notes that Lindsey involved UWUIM coverage, whereas the current dispute involves PIP coverage. But courts interpret both UM/ UIM and PIP insurance provisions broadly, and our discussion of the term “auto accident” in Lindsey remains applicable to our analysis of the term “motor vehicle accident” in this case. See Stracener v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 777 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>); Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 572 S.W.2d at 308
holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage recognizing that umuim statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that umuim coverage is to be construed liberally to give full effect to the public policy which led to its enactment recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions