In Bloodworth v. Carroll, 455 So. 2d 1197 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1984), plaintiff and a friend were talking while leaning on the back of the Camaro which plaintiff planned to ride home in. Plaintiff's ex-husband backed his car into the Camaro pinning plaintiff between the two cars. In a succinct disposal of the issue, with no mention of legal relationships, the court found that the plaintiff was "occupying" the Camaro: Actual physical contact with the insured vehicle is construed as being on it and comes within the definition of occupying it for the purpose of coverage under the policy...The trial judge found the plaintiffs were leaning against the Camaro as the accident happened and this finding of fact is fully supported by the record. The contention that Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Bloodworth were not occupying the Camaro has no merit. Id. at 1204.