Because respondent Marcia Malatino (hereinafter respondent) did not sustain injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration.1 Respondent’s coworker parked his pickup truck in the employer’s parking lot in the morning and apparently intended to leave the vehicle there for his entire eight-hour shift. If respondent had walked into the parked truck itself, her injuries would not have arisen out of the use of the vehicle (see Wooster v Soriano, 167 AD2d 233, 234 [1990]; McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d 676, 677 [1975]). The same result should follow when she walked into materials protruding from the bed of the truck.
While “use” of a motor vehicle encompasses more than just driving and extends to other incidental activities (see Rowell v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 636, 639 [1991]), there are limits to that term and the corresponding insurance coverage.2 The majority holds that the truck here was being used to contain *970sheet metal until the coworker could transport it, rendering the vehicle in “use.” This broad finding places no parameters on the use of a vehicle. It is unclear if the majority considered that the truck was in use while containing the sheet metal only because the coworker intended to transport the sheet metal to the junkyard that same day, or if the truck would be considered in use as a vehicle if the sheet metal was placed there a year earlier and the coworker regularly parked his truck with metal protruding from his tailgate. Conversely, if the truck was never moved from the parking lot but was regularly utilized to store different materials in the same location, would the parked truck constantly be in use as a vehicle? Rather than expanding the application of the statute and regulation requiring coverage for injuries arising out of a “motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use” (11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f] [II]; see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]), we should adhere to the current rule that looks to whether the “circumstances constituted an ‘on-going activity relating to the vehicle’ which would necessitate a conclusion that the vehicle was in use” (Trentini v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 957, 958 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 823 [2004], quoting Matter of Celona v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 85 AD2d 635, 636 [1981]; see Zaccari v Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 597, 599-600 [2006]; Wooster v Soriano, 167 AD2d at 234).
In Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc. (23 AD3d 889 [2005]), this Court held that a plaintiff’s back injury caused by lifting a heavy box was not related to the use of a motor vehicle, even though he was standing in a delivery van when unloading the box. We found the proximity to the vehicle “wholly incidental,” “[a]s plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred even if he had been standing on the ground and lifting the box” (id. at 890; see Sochinski v Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 889, 889 [1995]; United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 75 AD2d 1022, 1022 [1980]; cf. Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 215 [1996]). Similarly, respondent here would have received the same injuries had the sheet metal she walked into been protruding from any object other than a vehicle. Under the circumstances, there was no ongoing activity related to the parked truck—in its capacity as a motor vehicle, rather than as a storage bin for sheet metal—so as to necessitate a conclusion that the vehicle was in use when respondent was injured (see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d at *971890; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Hayden— Allstate Ins. Co.], 209 AD2d 927, 928 [1994] [staying arbitration where “accident did not arise out of the inherent nature of the automobile as such”]; Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 AD2d 1028, 1028 [1977], affd 44 NY2d 881 [1978]; McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d at 677). Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration because its insurance policy does not provide coverage for respondent’s injuries.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and application denied.
. The parties do not contend that respondent’s accident arose from ownership or maintenance of a motor vehicle, so we likewise focus on whether her injuries arose from the vehicle’s use.
. The majority asserts that case law requires us to strictly construe the insurance policy against the insurer (see Penna v Federal Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 731, 731 [2006]). While that is the general rule—based upon a canon of contract interpretation that courts construe terms against the drafter (see Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v Schaefer, 70 NY2d 888, 890 [1987])—it is unfair to apply that rule where, as here, the provision at issue was not written by the insurer, but was drafted by the Insurance Department, and its inclusion was mandated by law (see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]; 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 *970[f]; see generally Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 214 [1996]). I therefore find cases interpreting mandatory no-fault provisions more pertinent.