In Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 17 Fed. Appx. 250 (4th Cir. 2001) the policy excluded coverage for "bodily injury and property damage . . . arising out of your product." 17 Fed. Appx. at 252. The underlying litigation was brought by twelve municipalities and a class of individuals. Id. The complaint asserted claims for "negligent marketing and distribution of guns and public nuisance, and sought to recover expenses allegedly incurred in treating and caring for people who have suffered gunshot injuries." Id. The court concluded that, under Maryland law, the phrase "arising out of" in the products hazard exclusion means "but for" causation. Id. at 253. The court then held that coverage did not apply because the alleged injuries arose out of Beretta's products.