FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCT 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 06- 1292 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 40 0- CV-4 -SPM -AK EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, anI lli noi s C or

por at ion , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BUDGET GROUP INC., a Fl or ida Co rp or at ion , JA YN E P O T T S, a s P er sona l R ep re se ntativ e of the E state of W ill ia m E . P ott s, Mary

P ott s and A nnaP ott s,

D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 5, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.Dr . Po tts and his da ug hte rs we re tr a g ic a lly

kil le d in an a uto mob ile a c c ide nt. 1 2 PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r on c ro ss- m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t w he re in the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the appe lle es a nd a ga ins t the appe llant, E vanst on I nsur an ce Co m pany (“ E vanst on” ), in a de cl ar at or y j udgm en t a ct ionbr ough t by E vanst on t o de te rm ine insurance coverage. T he iss ue pr es en te d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and o n a ppe al is w he the r the co m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y

po li cy th atEvan st on is su edto th e Bu dg etGrou p, In c., (“ Bu dge t” ) pr ovi de s c ove ra ge f or aw ro ngf ul d eath s uit

a ga ins t B udge t, by

Jane Po tts ( “ Po tts ”) , a s pe rs ona l r ep re se ntativ e of the e state s of

D r. W ill ia m

E . P ott s, Mary P ott s and A nnaP ott s. 1 In the underly ing action, Jane Potts, as per sonal representative of the estates of D r. W ill ia m

E . P ott s, Mary

P ott s and A nnaP ott s su ed vari ous de fe ndants f

or ne gli ge nc e w hic h pr oxi m at el y c au se d th e de ath of

D r. P ott s and h is d au ght er s. Evanston issu ed a com

m ercia l general liability

policy to Budget. T he policy co nta ine d tw o e xc lus ion s – o ne is a standard auto -u se e xc lus ion . T he oth er one is a professional liabilityexclusion. In its summ ary j udgm ent order, the district court de te rm in edth atne it he r ex cl us io n app li edto ex cl ud e co ve rag e fo r Po tt s’s l os s.3

W e rev ie w de novo a di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Ja ck

son v. B el lso uth T

el ec om m s. , 372 F. 3d 12 50, 1279 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). W e w ill affirm the summ ary

j udgm ent entered for Potts if there is no genuin e issue of m aterial fact an d P ot ts is en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. See F ed . R. Ci v. P . 56( c) . I n th is c as e, the part ie s st ipu la te that the re a re no g enuin e iss ue s of m at eri al fact . T he lawin Fl or ida

is that i nsur an ce c ove ra ge m ust be c onstru ed

br oa dly a nd it s ex cl us io ns na rro wly. De mshar v. AAAC on Auto Transp ort, Inc. , 337 S o. 2d 963, 965 ( Fl a. 197 6) . Mo re ove r, ins ur an ce c ontra ct s are to be c onstru ed m ost st ro ng ly agai ns t t he in su rer a nd li be ral ly in fa vo r of th e in su red . Hartnett v. Sout he rn I ns. Co . , 181 So.2d 524, 528 (Fla. 1965 ). T ak ing the auto e xc lus ionf ir st, w e co nc lud e that i t on ly appl ie s w he n th e au to i s owne d or

ope rate d by

or r en te d or loane d to a ny

ins ur ed . F ir st, Bu dge t di d not ow n th e 15- pa sse nge r van a t the ti m e of the a cc ide nt. I t i s un dis put ed that the van was ow ned by

a separate com

pany called P. C. Rental, Inc. Sec ond, the van w as not ope rate d by

Bu dge t. I t w as be ing ope rate d by D r. W ill ia m

E . P ott s a t the tim e of the ac cident. T hird, the van w as not rented to Budg et. The van was r ented to Dr. W illiam

E. Potts. F inally , the van w as not loaned to Budget or to any one at al l a t the ti m e of

the a cc ide nt. G ive n th e qua lif ie rs inc lud ed

in the pla in l an gua ge4

of the auto e xc lus ion , w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that the e xc lus ion can no t b e ap pl ie d t o b ar co ve rag e fo r Po tt s’s cl ai m . W ith respect to the professional liabil ity exclusion, the exclusion precludes claim s “ arising out of the rendering of or f or failure to render any

professional se rv ic es a nd the c ondu ct

of the ins ur ed ’ s bu sin es s. ” T he te rm “ pr of es sio na l” refe rs to persons who belon g to a learned profession or whose occupations require a h ig h l ev el of t rai ni ng an d p ro fic ie nc y . Se e A er oth rus t C orp. v . G rana da I

ns. Co . , 904 So.2d 470, 472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005 ). W e agre e w ith the dis trict co ur t’s fi nd in g t ha t re nt in g v eh ic le s t o t he pu bl ic is no t a p ro fes si on al ser vi ce. The c ases cited by

Evanston in its b rief dem onstrate that the exclusio n has been applied to atto rney s, psy chiatrists, and m edical technicians, but there are no cases ap ply ing the pr ovi sio n inthe c ont ex t of a n auto -r en ta l l ike w e ha ve in the pr es en t cas e. Fo r t h e f

o re g o i n g re as o n s , we af

fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s g ra n to f P o t t s ’s m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent and the denial of Evanston’s m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t. AFFIR MED.