In Maroney v. New York Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., the New York Court of Appeals determined that the the meaning of the words "arising out of" in an "uninsured premises" exclusion contained in a homeowner’s insurance policy can be interpreted as encompassing the use of the premises and not just a loss arising out of the premise’s physical condition.  As stated in this past post, the appeal involved an injured child whom the insured’s daughter was babysitting in a house covered under the applicable insurance policy.  The daughter was busy dressing when child first arrived so the insured mother had to do some chores in the barn across the street and took the child with her while her daughter finished dressing.  The barn was not insured on the insured’s homeowner’s policy.  While at the barn, one of the insured’s horses unfortunately kicked the child in the skull, causing him injuries.  After bringing a personal injury action against the homeowner, the injured child represented by his mother commenced a declaratory judgment action  against the insurer.

The Court rejected the injured child’s argument that a narrow interpretation of the term "arising out of" in the premises context should apply — i.e., only applying to injuries arising from the physical conditions of the premises.  Instead, the Court concluded that, in the uninsured premises realm, the phrase "arising out of" similarly requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided.