dissenting.
Because I believe that plaintiff has demonstrated that the shooting was sufficiently related to the use of the camper to establish policy coverage, I respectfully dissent.
*477The case is a difficult one analytically, as cases often are when the issue of “causation” must be decided. As the majority has pointed out, in interpreting the relevant insurance provisions:
“* * * [T]he words ‘arising out of have a broader meaning than that usually attached to the words ‘caused by.’ For there to be coverage * * * use of the vehicle need not be the direct or proximate cause of the injury. However, neither can the injury be unrelated to the use of the vehicle. The injury must originate from, be incident to or have a connection with the use of the vehicle.” 76 Or App at 475.
That interpretation, however, is still rather abstract and leaves us without much guidance to what “incident to or have a connection with the use” really means. But we are not totally without guidance. General insurance law provides at least some specific, concrete rules. One of those rules provides:
“The courts, in construing the words ‘arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use’ in an automobile liability insurance policy, must apply the same principles which are applied in interpreting insurance contracts generally; that is, if a policy is susceptible to more than one construction, it will be construed in a manner most favorable to the insured and words used therein will be given their natural and usual meaning unless otherwise defined in the insurance contract.” Annot., 15 ALR4th 10 (1982).
See Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Wallis, 289 Or 303, 613 P2d 36 (1980); O’Neill v. Standard Insurance, 276 Or 357, 361, 554 P2d 997 (1976); Mortgage Bancorp, v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 67 Or App 261, 677 P2d 726, rev den 297 Or 339 (1984).
Trailer-campers, unlike cars, are primarily used for the transportation and storage of equipment and to provide protection from the elements and living accommodations away from home. They are unique in that functions such as eating, sleeping and storage of equipment normally carried on in separate rooms at home are carried out in a single room and in very close proximity to each other. Here, the gun was kept for protection from animals and intruders; it was stored in the upper bunk or rack area of the camper-trailer. The camper was equipped with bathroom, cooking and sleeping facilities — a one room “home away from home.”
According to the record, the two young children were *478put down for a nap in the camper and left unattended by the adults. The younger child did not want to sleep in the camper, because she was afraid that there were bears in the forest. The older child told her not to be afraid, because there was a gun in the room. Curiosity got the better of the children. The older girl took the gun from its storage place and accidentally fired it.
It seems apparent to me that the accident would not have occurred unless the gun and the unsupervised children had not been placed in such close proximity. Given the facts that the gun was being stored in the camper for protection from animals and intruders and that the children — “afraid of bears” — were in the camper for the purpose of a nap, I would hold that the accident was “incident to, or connected with the use” of the camper. The unfortunate convergence of these two uses of the camper was sufficient to establish the connection necessary for insurance coverage.
For this reason, I respectfully dissent.