With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ("[I]n order for a loss to 'arise out of’ the use of a motor vehicle, for the purpose of determining whether personal injury protection coverage exists, 'some nexus’ between the vehicle and the injury is all that is required.”); Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 802 P.2d 1122, 1124 (Colo.Ct.App.1990) ("A 'but-for’ test is to be applied in determining whether this requisite causal relationship exists between the injury and the use of an insured vehicle.”); Gray v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 A.2d 778, 780 (Del.Super.Ct.1995) (to constitute an "accident involving a motor vehicle” and thus qualify for PIP coverage, a causal connection is required between the use of the vehicle and the injury); Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Patrick, 16 Kan.App.2d 26, 819 P.2d 1233, 1236 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Putkamer, 563 N.W.2d at 687 (finding that

A: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
B: holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury
C: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
D: holding that there must be some causal connection between the accident and the automobile allegedly involved for coverage to exist
D.