does not include (B) travel by the employee in the furtherance of the affairs or business of the employer if the travel is also in furtherance of personal or private affairs of the employee unless: (i) the travel to the place of occurrence of the injury would have been made even had there been no personal or private affairs of the employee to be furthered by the travel; and (ii) the travel would not have been made had there been no affairs or business of the employer to be furthered by the travel. Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 401.011(12)(B) (West Supp. 2010). The parties agree that paragraph (B) is not applicable here as Troy was traveling from home to work and had no personal purpose for the trip. See also Leordeanu v. American Protection Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239, 248-49 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>). 3 . McVey argues that Troy was on a "special
holding that transferee and beneficiary are mutually exclusive categories holding standing cannot be waived and may thus be raised at any time recognizing that  1983 and  2254 proceedings are mutually exclusive so that if a claim can be properly raised in one of those proceedings it cannot be raised in the other type of proceeding holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that subparagraphs a and b are mutually exclusive and thus any travel between work and home even if it is also for a dual purpose must be analyzed exclusively under paragraph a