entrustment are distinct torts. ICA’s majority opinion at 13-16. The ICA reasoned that, whereas negligent entrustment is, per se, derived from the use of a motor vehicle, negligent supervision is not necessarily so linked. However, “a number of courts construing claims of negligent supervision and negligent entrustment have held that the two are basically synonymous for [purposes] of [the automobile] exclusion [contained in an insurance policy].” Love ex rel. Smith v. McDonough, 758 F.Supp. 397, 402 (S.D.Miss.), aff'd, 947 F.2d 1486 (5th Cir.1991) (citing Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Ekstrom, 784 P.2d 320 (Colo.1989), and Great Central Ins. Co. v. Roemmich, 291 N.W.2d 772 (S.D.1980)). See also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Estate of Evoniuk, 681 F.Supp. 662, 663 (N.D.Cal.1988) (<HOLDING>); Lahey v. Benjou, 759 P.2d 855, 857
holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided holding that negligent supervision is inseparable from the use of the motor vehicle holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that negligent supervision is inextricably intertwined with the motor vehicle involved in the accident and collecting decisions from fourteen other jurisdictions reaching the same holding holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling