tortious conduct is intentional (and thus excluded) and when those claims against the employer or supervisor are related to and are interdependent on the employee’s intentional misconduct. Cornhill Insurance PLC v. Valsamis, Inc., 106 F.3d 80, 87 (5th Cir.1997) (“[Wjhere liability premised on negligence is related to and interdependent of other tortious activities, the ‘ultimate issue’ is whether the tortious activities themselves are encompassed by the ‘occurrence’ definition.”); New York Life Ins. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.1996) (excluding claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision against employer that were “related to” and “interdependent on” claim of fraud by employee because employee’s intent i nsurance Corp., 933 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In American Guarantee & Liability Insurance
holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear holding that where employer acknowledges respondeat superior liability for the conduct of its employee direct negligence claims become duplicative holding that trial court did not err in striking plaintiffs negligent hiring employment and entrustment claims against employer where employer acknowledged vicarious liability for employees negligence holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability holding that under louisiana law dishonest act exclusion in employers commercial liability policy excluded negligence and vicarious liability claims against employer for losses based upon the excluded conduct of its employee