assuming that the tractor-trailer was a "hired tual Ins. Co., 222 So.2d 436, (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) (directing a concrete truck to close to the edge of a pit so that it fell in is not "use” for purposes of liability insurance coverage) with Wyoming County v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 360 F.Supp. 1212, 1219 (W.D.N.Y.1973) (interpreting the "use” of a vehicle as extending to such activities as "signaling an operator whose vision is obscured” and to "supervising and giving instructions to the operator.”); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steenberg Constr. Co., 225 F.2d 294, 297 (8th Cir.1955) (broadly interpreting the word "use” or "using” in an omnibus clause as encompassing the provision of directions to the driver of a cement truck); Ins. Co. of North America v. a. 128, 500 S.E.2d 819 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Great American Ins. Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va.
holding nearly identical policy language plainly indicates that any claim arising from the excluded drivers operation of the automobile is not covered including negligent entrustment claim against the named insured holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that insured substantially complied with the manner of changing the beneficiary as required by the policy holding that the named insured was using an automobile when changing its tire holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot