have already observed, this does not comport with the elements that make up this tort concept of negligent entrustment. Erie, 507 A.2d at 396. Thus, we held that Transamerica’s homeowner policy did not give rise to coverage for the negligent entrustment of an automobile. ¶ 16 A review of more recent case law from other states reveals that the dichotomy in the treatment of the tort of negligent entrustment under a homeowner’s policy continues to exist. See e.g., American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. White, 204 Ariz. 500, 65 P.3d 449 (Ct.App.2003) (finding that a claim of negligent entrustment or supervision could not exist apart from the excluded aggravated assault on the part of insureds’ son); Belmonte v. Employers Insurance Company, 83 Cal.App.4th 430, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 661 (2000) (<HOLDING>); compare Crist v. Hunan Palace, Inc., 277 Kan.
holding that insureds act of permitting access to key was conduct separate only in fact that it preceded collision it cannot be disassociated from the use of the vehicle itself holding that the government was bound by an agreement it treated as binding although it preceded the formal plea agreement holding that collision between loading ramp that detached from trailer and insureds vehicle was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that unless the collision resulted in a total loss the measure of recovery is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was immediately prior to the collision and its value thereafter holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle