While much legal jargon can be dispensed with because the intent is clear from simpler language, this one actually has some purpose.
"Arising from/out of X" implies that the claim was caused by X (here, the from/out of is redundant as you point out)
But "in connection with X" implies something more broader, merely that it has a nexus to X.
By joining the two, the drafter sends the signal that the intended scope is as broad as it can reasonably be. If it only said "arising from," some claims that only have a tenuous relationship to X do not fall within the scope. Parties may decide that they want the scope to be narrow, or they want to be be broad, and the language matters.