Is the exclusion for injury or damage "arising out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle that is owned or operated by an insured...." in a personal injury policy?

Salas argues that the exclusion for injury or damage "arising out of the ... maintenance ... of ... a motor vehicle owned or operated by ... an insured...." is ambiguous. He focuses his argument on the initial terms, "arising out of...." He claims that the ambiguity arises because the phrase, undefined in the policy, is reasonably susceptible to at least two interpretations. On the one hand, it could connote any bare connection between vehicle maintenance and the resultant injury or damage. On the other hand, it could denote only a narrow range of more intimate relationships, akin to tort concepts of proximate cause. (See Eichelberger v. Warner (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 269, 434 A.2d 747, 749-752 [finding an ambiguity and construing "arising out of" broadly in coverage provision and narrowly in exclusion clause].) Given this proffered semantic range, he argues that we [222 Cal.App.3d 274] should apply the cited construction rules and interpret the exclusion narrowly in favor of coverage. ⁴