in Deffenbaugh, resided on the employer’s premises at the time of her fatal injury. Employing an increased-risk analysis, Nimisha was expected to reside on the premises and, as a residential employee of the hotel, the nsable where an employee performs an activity for the purpose of attending to his personal needs. However, Cook, supra, is distinguishable from the present case because the truck driver was not a residential employee of the motel. The driver spent the night in a motel room, which, while paid for by the employer, was neither owned nor operated on the premises of his employer. The scenario might have been different if the truck driver had sustained the injury while sleeping in his truck. See also Kinnebrew v. Little John’s Truck, Inc., 66 Ark. App. 90, 989 S.W.2d 541 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Based upon our well-established standard of
holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions holding that an officers belief that he had observed the occupants of a truck participate in a drug transaction supported a valid investigatory detention of the truck and its occupants holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable holding that an insurance company did not have a duty to defend the plaintiff because providing directions to a concrete mixing truck does not constitute use of the truck