With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pa.Super. 30, 566 A.2d 600 (1989), allocatur denied, 525 Pa. 601, 575 A.2d 567 (1990), the trial court found no “causal connection” between the bus and the accident. We reject the trial court’s interpretation of the policy language as it applies to the facts of the underlying tort action and the Lehmans’ allegations against Lebanon Coach. Instead, we conclude that Paula Jo Lehman’s injuries are causally connected with the use of a covered bus for the following reasons. Initially, we note that a number of cases have interpreted similar language in insurance policies in various contexts. One such line of cases involves a determination of whether the injured person was an “occupant” of the vehicle. See e.g., Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328, 473 A.2d 1005 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Frain v. Keystone Insurance Company, 433

A: holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle
B: holding mr contrisciane was occupying his insured vehicle when he was struck and killed by an uninsured vehicle after leaving his car to walk over to patrol car with his drivers information as directed by police officer
C: holding that liability insurance covered the injuries sustained when claimant exited car and was struck by a live wire since the claimant was still occupying the vehicle
D: holding that injury of plaintiff  who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle  did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible
B.