With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 397. This Court had cited the following language from Cooter v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 344 So.2d 496, 498 (Al.1977), which we find particularly telling: The fatal weakness of the appellants’ contention for coverage lies in its failure to acknowledge one of the elements essential to recovery for negligent entrustment — the negligent operation of the motor vehicle.... The plain wording of the exclusionary provision reveals the deficien 99 Tenn.App. Lexis 440 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999) (explaining that vehicle owner’s liability for negligent entrustment did not rest on imputed negligence, but was based on his own negligence in entrusting the automobile to an incompetent driver); Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company v. Center Mutual Insurance Company, 658 N.W.2d 363 (N.D.2003) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17 After study, however, we conclude that

A: holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy
B: holding that there was no evidence in the record to support appellants contention that the doctor committed a separate act of negligence by continuing to prescribe coumadin and that the doctors alleged failure to correct any previous negligence does not constitute additional acts of negligence
C: holding that because there were motor vehiclerelated acts of negligence and nonmotor vehiclerelated acts of negligence both involved in the same accident concurrent coverage under both the auto policy and the farm policy existed
D: holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy
C.