being “used” by Earth Tech, such "use” was with the “permission” of Capitol. Because this question is intertwined with the interpretative questions addressed here, and because it is not alone dispositive, it will not be separately addressed. 5 . This issue, first raised in oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, was addressed at length in the parties' supplemental briefs. 6 . Because the Excess Policy provides that "the words 'you’ and 'your’ refer to an 3, 191 Ill. Dec. 216, 623 N.E.2d 806, 811 (1993) ("We conclude that in order to constitute a 'use’ or be a 'user' under the policy, such as to be an insured, one must be in operation of the vehicle.”); J. Scheer & Sons Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 35 Misc.2d 262, 229 N.Y.S.2d 248, 251 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1962) (<HOLDING>); Wellman Lord Engineers, Inc. v. Northwestern
holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable 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 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 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 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