Brought upon an automobile policy insuring a Chevrolet tractor No. 2258, the suit was for the recovery of sums defendant had, under “Coverage-b Property Damage Liability”, contracted and agreed to pay on behalf of plaintiff, as insured.
The claim was that the damages sued for were, within the meaning of Coverage-b, “caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile”.
The defendant denied liability and, by cross action, sought recovery of premiums due and unpaid.
Tried to the court without a jury and upon evidence presenting no conflict, there were findings of fact numbered I to XII. The first eleven1 of these were findings of *376the facts testified to, as distinguished from inferences or conclusions drawn from these. The Twelfth 2 was made up in part of facts and in part of inferences from them. Based on these inferences and upon one conclusion of law,3 there was a judgment for defendant of no liability on the policy and for the premium sued for on its cross bill.
Appealing from this judgment, plaintiff is here attacking as erroneous the conclusions of fact finding XII, and the conclusion of law, and insisting that the judgment may not stand.
In support of its position, it invokes the rules of construction applied to insurance policies: (1) that the language having been selected by the insurer must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer;4 *and (2) that if the language of the policy admits of two constructions, that most favorable to the insured must be adopted.5
In fuller and more precise support, appellant, citing and discussing cases,6 with particular emphasis on two from Texas,7 insists that the great, the controlling, weight of authority supports its contention that the accident and damages were within the coverage of the policy, and the defendant is liable.
Appellee, on its part, insists that the policy is unambiguous and that, under the facts as found and the authorities upon *377which it relies,8 it is quite clear that the district judge was right in holding, as he did, that the accident and damages did not arise from the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile, and that there was no coverage and no liability.
While we are aware that cases may be found which support the narrow view of the loading and unloading clause contended for by the appellee, and given effect by the district judge,9 we agree with appellant that the weight of authority, and particularly in Texas, is to the contrary. We agree with appellant, therefore, that the statements made in fact finding XII, “The truck had no connection with the gasoline which exploded * * * the use of the truck was not in any actual sense coupled with the leakage of gasoline”, if regarded as findings of fact and not of law, are clearly erroneous, that is, without support in the evidence under the authorities we regard as best considered and controlling here.
Because the view we adopt, as not only correct in general but binding upon us as the view adopted in Texas, from which this case comes, is set out convincingly and with great clarity in the Texas cases, particularly the Brock case, cited in note 7, supra, and there supported by a wealth of citations, it is sufficient for us, without more, to refer to that case and to Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Commercial Ins. Co., 108 Utah 500, 161 P.2d 423, 160 A.L.R. 1251 and the annotations to it, as authority for our view and for a discussion of the two differing lines of authorities.
In stating that the Brock case, supra is authority for our view that there was coverage here, we are not unmindful of the fact that that case and all, or nearly all of the cases referred to in it, dealt with the proper construction of the “loading and unloading” clause of the policy, and that the differences in the two lines of cases spring from the respective theories on which the construction is based.
One of these, the narrow or limited theory of “coming to rest,” is that, for occurrences not directly involved in the loading and unloading, the policy affords no coverage.10
The other, the theory adopted in Texas and generally known as the “complete operation theory”, holds that the provision for use coverage extends to foreseeable consequences of what was done in connection with the use of the car, whether before, after, or during loading or unloading, so long as the act or thing done by the insured’s employee which causes the accident arises out of the use of the insured’s car.
Neither are we unmindful of the fact that the act causing the accident, for which coverage is claimed here, occurred not while cargo was being loaded into, or unloaded from the tractor-trailer, but while the tractor was being fueled, and that it is contended that, therefore, the wider coverage accorded in connection with loading and unloading11 is not applicable here.
We are of the opinion that the definition of “use” as “including loading and unloading” is of no great significance in broadening its meaning and that fueling the truck for the journey was just as much a “use” of it is making the journey would be. Cf. Panhandle Steel, note 7, supra, where “use” was not so defined. Without, therefore adopting appellant’s theory that the fueling of the truck was a loading operation, we hold that, though the invoked authorities do deal with accidents arising out of the handling of cargo, they are in point *378here where what was being done at the time the wrongful cause was set in motion was an act clearly arising out of either the maintenance or the use of the truck in readying it for its journey.
We rest our holding broadly upon the view, fully developed by the Supreme Court of Missouri, in Schmidt v. Utilities Ins. Co., supra, [353 Mo. 213, 182 S.W.2d 12 185] that the words “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the [truck]” are not words of narrow and specific limitation, but are broad, general, and comprehensive terms effecting broad coverage and that they are intended to, and do afford protection to the insured against liability imposed upon him for all damages caused by acts, of his employee in charge of the operation or use of the truck, done in connection with or arising out of such use. “Arising out of” are words of much broader significance than “caused by”. They are ordinarily understood to mean “ ‘originating from’ ‘having its origin in,’ ‘growing out of’ or ‘flowing from’ ”, or in short, “incident to, or having connection with”, the use of the car.
That the cause of the escape of the gasoline, which in unbroken sequence proximately caused the explosion was the negligent act of the driver of the truck in failing properly to close the valve after he had finished fueling his truck from the tank, was not disputed. That there was a direct and proximate causal connection, therefore, between the act causing the escape of the gas and the damages appellant had to pay, no one denies. That this act of the driver of the tractor, in not closing the valve, was an act incident to, and having a connection with, the ownership, maintenance, or use of the truck, we think may not be questioned. To deny coverage here, under these facts, because the gasoline causing the injury had never been in the truck, would be to limit the policy, contrary to its broadly •stated terms and to the weight of authority, to damages or injuries proximately caused by the truck itself, as opposed to acts of the driver in charge of the tractor, done or permitted to be done in connection with the duties or services performed by him, — in this case fueling it — incident to. and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, and use of the tractor.
The judgment is reversed and the causé-is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.