District Judge of th e South ern District of Mi ssissippi, sittin g bydesi gn atio n. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50671
A D M IR A L IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. RA NDA L L K. F OR D, d o i n gb u s i n e s s a s R
. K. F o r d a n d A s s o c i a t e s ; R
. K. FORD & ASSOCI ATES I N CO RPOR ATED ; RKF CO N SULTAN TS IN C O R P O R A T E D , d o in gb u s in e s s a s R . K . F o r d & A s s o c ia te s , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B e fo r e J O L L Ya n d G A R Z A , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d S T A R R E T T , D is tr ic t J u d g e . * E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Appe l l antA dm i r alI ns ur anc e Co m p a n y( “Ad m i r a l” ) a p p e a l s f r o m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nti n fav o rof A ppe l l e e s ( “ For d” )
. The ap pea lasks us to determ i n e the ap pl i cabi l i t y of a p rof essi on alser vi ces excl u si on in a n in s u r a n c e co n tr a c t t h a t A d m ir a l s o ld to F o r d
. I Ford pur c hase d t w o i nsur ance pol i c i es f r om A dm i r al
. The C om m erci al G ener alLi abi l i t y ( “ C G L”) pol i c y prov i ded o c c urr enc e- bas ed c ove r age w i t h a $1 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 21, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

Admiralh as aban done d it s effort toh ave th e $ 50,0 00 paid pursuant to the PLpolicy 1 reimb ursed. 2 m i l l i on l i m i tper occ u rrence. Th e professi on a l l i abil i t y ( “ P L ” ) pol i cy provi ded “cl a i m s-m a d e” cov era ge , w h i ch cov ere d “oi lan d ga s con su l tan t” op era ti on s w i th
a $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 lim it p e rcla im
. Th e CG L pol i c y c ont ai n ed a n exc l usi on f ordes i gnat ed pr of

es si onal
serv i ces. T h i s ex cl u sion pr ov i d es, i n releva n t pa rt: SCHED ULE D escr i pti on of

P rof essi on alServi ces: 1
. AL L OPER AT I ONS OF T HE I NSURED 2
. 3
. (I f n o e n tr ya p p e a r s a b o v e , th e in fo r m a tio n to co m p le te th is e n d o r s e m e n t w ill b e s h o w n in th e D e c la r a tio n s a s a p p lic a b le to th is e n d o r s e m e n t.) W i t h res pect t o an y professi on alser vi ces show n i n t h e Sch edu l e, th is in s u r a n c e d o e s n o t a p p ly to “b o d ilyinju r y ,” “p r o p e r ty d a m a g e ,”
“ persona li nj u ry, ” or “ ad vert i si n g i nj u ry” du e to th e renderi n g or fai l u re t o render an y professi on alser vi ce. A fter F o rd p u rc h a se d th e p o li cie s, E x co R e so u rc e s, In c. (“E x co ”) h ire d F ord t o c r e at e a dr i l l i ng pl an f o ra n o i lw e l la nd t o consultand a s s i s ti n t he dr i l l i ng o f t he we l l
. Du r i n gd r i l l i n g , t h e we l lh a d a b l o wo u t , a n d Ex c o s u e d F o r d. Adm i r alpa i d Fo r d $ 50 , 00 0 pur s uantt o t he PL po l i c y, t he n f i l e d t he i ns t ant l aw sui tf

or a decl arator y j u dg m en tt h at i td i d n otow e F ord an y coverage un der ei t h er t h e C G L or t h e P L pol i cy. A dm i ralcl ai m ed that t h e professi on alser vi ces 1
e xc l us i o n t o t he CG L e xc l ude s c o ve r ag e f o rExc o ’ s l awsui tb e c ause t he
u n d e rlyi n g cond u ctrequi red F ord’ s s peci al i zed or t echn i calkn ow l edg e. Ford resp on d ed tha t beca u se th e p rofession a lserv i ces e xc l u sion pu rp orts to a p p l y to Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

Although bothparties address the dutyto inde mnifyinth eir briefing , th e indemnity 2 is su e isnotb ef

ore th e co urtb ec au seth e di strictc ourtseveredit fromth e in st a nt app eal. 3 “ a l lo p e r a t i o ns o f

t h e i n s u r e d , ” t h e e x c l u s i o n d e s t r o y e d a n yg r a n to f C GL
c o v e r a g e , a n d th e r e fo r e s h o u ld n o t b e g iv e n e ffe c t. O n cr oss- m ot i on s f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , t h e di st ri ctcourtrul ed i n favor o f F o r d , fin d in g th a t th e p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s e x c lu s io n w a s illu s o r yb e c a u s e it de f i ne d p r o fe s s i o nalser vi c e s a s a l lo pe r at i o ns o f t he i ns ur e d. The c o ur tf o und t h at t h i s broad descri pti on of professi on al ser vi ces obl i t erat ed the en t i re i n suran ce pol i cy, an d gav e t h e excl u si on no ef fect
. I tf

ou n d that A dm i ralow ed
a dut y t o de fe nd Fo r d i n t he und e r l yi ng l awsui t
. Adm i r alt i m e l y ap pe al e d. T h e E x c o litig a tio n w a s s e tt le d b e fo r e o r a l a r g u m e n t o f th is ca s e . A j us t i c i ab l e c o nt r o ve r s y r e m ai ns , ho w e ve r , r e ga r di ng Adm i r al ’ s dut y t o de fe nd si n ce t h e deter m i n ati o n o f t h at duty af

fect s t h e l egal fees expen ded i n defen se o f t he Exc o l i t i ga t i o n b e f o r e i tw as s e t t l e d. 2

II Thi s Cour tr e vi e w s t he di s t r i c tcourt ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e ntde
n o v o . Am
. Nat ’lG e n. I ns . Co. v . Ryan , 27 4 F. 3d 31 9, 32 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 01 ) ( c i t i ng McC len d o n v . C ity of Co lu m b ia , 258 F
. 3d 432 , 435 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) )
. “ T h e di st ri ct court’ s i n t erpret ati on of an i n suran ce c on t racti s a questi on of l aw t h at w e al so rev i ew d e no vo . ” I

d. B eca u se th i s i s a d i ve rsit y ca se i n vo l vin g a T ex a s con tract, “T ex a s ru l es o f con tract i n terp reta ti on con trol. ” I d. (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). III A A dm i ra la r gue s t hatt he “ al lo pe r at i o ns ” l ang uag e do e s no tde f i ne pr o fe s s i o nal s e r vi c e s , but r at he r pr o vi de s t he s c o pe o f t he e xc l us i o n. Ac c o r di ng t o A dm i ral , t h e “ al lo pe r at i o ns ” l an gu age si m pl y m ean s t h at t h e parti es i n t en ded t he l egaldef

i ni t i on o f

prof es si onalser vi c es t o e xc l ude c ove r age f orpr of es si onal
se r vi c es i n any of

F or d’ s ope r at i ons . A dm i r alu r ges t he c our tt o a ppl y t he l egal Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

4 d e fin itio n o f p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s , a s a r tic u la te d b yT e x a s co u r ts , w h ic h w o u ld l i m i tprofessi on alser vi ces t o t h ose t h at r equ i re t h e professio n a l’ s “ speci al i zed kn ow l edg e or t rai n in g .” I n res pon se, F ord essenti al l y rel i es on t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s pl ai n l ang uag e r e ad i ng, ur gi ng t he c o ur tno tt o “ r e - w r i t e ” t he e xc l us i o n. Texas l aw i nst r uct s t hatw e a re t o a sc er t ai n t he s c ope of c ove r age by
e x a m in in gth e p o lic ya s a w h o le a n d d e te r m in in gth e p a r tie s ’in te n t. Uti c aNa t’l Ins. Co. of

T ex. v. A m . I

n d em . Co. , 141 S
. W
. 3d 198 , 202 ( T ex. 200 4)
. “ ‘ T h e court
m ustadoptt he c ons t r uct i on o f an exc l usi onar y c l ause urg ed byt he i nsur ed as l ong as t hatc ons t r uct i on i s notunre as onabl e, even i f t he c ons t r uct i on ur ged by t he i ns ur e ra ppe ar s t o b e m ore reasonab l e o ra m o r e a c c ur at e r e f l e c t i o n o f

t he p a rti es’ i n ten t. ’” I

d. ( quot i ng Nat’

lUn i on Fi re Ins. Co. v. H u d son E n ergy Co. , 81 1 S. W
. 2d5 52 , 5 55 (Tex
. 1 991 ) )
. Te r m s a r e g i ve n t he i ro r di nar y m e ani ng u n l ess t h e i n suran ce pol i cy show s t h at t h e w ords w ere m ean ti n a t echn i calor d iffe r e n t s e n s e . Mark e lI ns. Co. v. Muzy ka , 2 9 3 S. W
. 3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 5 (Tex. App.

— For tW o r t h 2 00 9, no pe t
. )
. The c o ur t , ho w e ve r , m us t“ r e ad a l lpa r t s o f t he
c o nt r ac tt o ge t he r. . . s t r i vi ng t o g i ve m e ani n g t o e ve r y s e nt e nc e , c l aus e , a nd
w ord to av oid re n d erin g a n y p ortion i n op era tive . ” B aland ran v. S afe co I n s. Co. of A m. , 9 7 2 S .W .2d 7 3 8 , 7 4 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ) (cita tion s o m itted ). F ord’ s pl ai n l an gu age argu m en t , t h ou gh si m pl e, i s non et h eless st ran ge. In ef fect , F ord reads t h e excl u si on so broad l y as t o defeat an y coverage, an d then
c l ai m s t hatbe c ause t he cov era ge i s r ender ed i l l uso r y undert hi s br oad i nt e r pr e t at i o n, t he e xc l us i o n s ho ul d b e g i ve n no e f fe c t
. W he r e as no r m al l y t he in s u r e d a d v a n c e s a n in t e r p r e t a t io n th a tp r o v id e s b r o a d e rc o v e r a g e , h e r e F o r d ’s i n t erpret ati on of

th e excl u si on i s t h at al lof i t s operat i on s are excl u ded f rom coverage. N eedl ess t o say, i ti s di f f i cul tt o un derst an d w h y F ord w ou l d p u rchase
a p o lic yth a t itb e lie v e d to e x c lu d e a ll o f its o p e r a tio n s fr o m co v e r a g e . C our t s anal yzi ng i nsur ance c ont r ac t s w i t h es se nt i al l y t he s am e f or m atas t h e i n st an tcontr actha ve n otaccep te d th e ph rase f ol l ow i n g “ descri pti on of Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

See, e.g. , Certain Underwrite rs at Lloy d’s, Lon don v. Amwest Fin ., I nc. , No. Civ. H-04- 3 402 4, 2 005WL19 942 90, at *1–2, * 7 (S .D. Tex . Aug . 17 , 20 05) (inte r p r et in g anide ntic al sch edulewithth e de scriptio n“fin a nci al le n de r”). 5 p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s ” a s th e d e fin itio n o f p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s . F o re x a m p le , in 3 At l a nt i cLloy d’

s I ns ur a nc e Co
. of Te x a s v . Su s m a n Godf r ey , L. L. P. , 982 S. W
. 2d 472, 476–77 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as 1998, pet
. deni ed) , the i nsur ed, a l aw f i r m , had
w ri t t en a descri pti on of i t s pract i ce f

ol l ow i n g t h e ph rase “ [ d]es cri pti on of p rofession a lserv i ces.” I d. at 476
. N on et h el ess , t h e courtsurveyed how ot h er c o ur t s ha d d e f

i ne d “ pr o fe s s i on al se r vi c e s ” b e f o r e s e t t l i ng o n a l e ga lde f i ni t i o n. Id
. T h e cou rtf

ou n d that “ [ t ] o qu al i f y as a professi on alser vi ce, t h e t ask m u st
a r is e o u t o f a c ts p a r tic u la rto th e in d iv id u a l’ s s p e c i a l i z e d v o c a tio n , [a n d ] . .
. it
m u stbe necessary f or t h e professi on alt o use h i s s peci al i zed k n ow l edg e or train i n g.” I

d. a t 4 7 6

– 7 7
. A l t hough T exas c our t s h a ve oft en ap p l i ed a lega lde fi n i ti on of “pro fessi on al servi ces” i n t h e contextof a professi on alser vi ces excl u si on t o an i n su ra n ce contract , t h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that a rec en tdeci si on of t h i s c ou rtpreven t ed i tf rom app l yi n g t h e l egal defi n i t i on of professi on al servi ces. T h e di st ri ctcourt stated tha t D avis

- R u i z Corp. v. Mi d

- Co n t i n ent C as. Co. , 281 F. A pp’ x 267, 272 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) (u n pu bl i she d ) (p e r curi am ) , m an da t es t h at i f t h e t erm

“ pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s ” i s no tde f i ne d i n t he po l i c y, t he n “ as a m at t e ro f l aw, no cou rt can de term i n e i f ‘ p rofession a l serv i ces’ w ere ren d ere d
. ” T h e d i stri ct cou rt, ho w e ve r , m i s i nt e r pr e t e d D a v is-R u iz
. I n D a v is-R u iz , t h e parti es di spu t ed an i de n ticalprofessi on alser vi ces exc l usi on e xc epti n t hatcas e, t he ar ea und er“ D es c r i pt i on o f Pro fes si onal S ervi ce s ” w as b l ank
. 2 81 F. App’ x at2 71 –7 2. The c o ur tt he n l o o ke d t o t he speci f i c i n st ructi on of

t h e professi on al servi ces excl u si on , w h i ch s ai d “ i f n o entry
a p p e a r s a b o v e , i n f

o r ma t i o n r e q u i r e d t o c o mp l e t e t h i s e n d o r s e me n twi l lb e s h o wn i n th e D eclara ti on s as ap p l i ca b l e to th i s en d orse m en t. ” I d. at272. Acc or di ngl y, Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

6 t he c our tl oo ked t o t he D ec l ar at i ons , c onc l udi ng t hatt he e xc l usi on s houl d be
a p p lie d to th e in s u r e d ’ s b u s in e s s a s d e fin e d in th e D e c la r a tio n s . I d. Al t hough t h ere w as no speci f

i c def i n i t i on of

professi on alser vi ces i n the con t ract , t h e court
a p p lie d th e le g a l d e fin itio n o f p r o fe s s io n a l s e r v ic e s to th e in s u r e d ’ s b u s in e s s . I d. D a v is-R u izdo es n ot su gg est th a t a cou rt m a y o n l y look to t h e con tract to defi n e “ professi on alser vi ces. ” U si n g t h e l egal defi n i t i on of “ professi on alser vi ce”
w as n ot an i ssue. A t i ssue w as t o w h i ch of t h e i n sured’ s operat i on s t h e excl u si on a p p lie d
. I

d. at271–72 ( “[ T ]he e xc l usi on doe s notappl y t o a l lpr of es si onal servi ces, bu tonl y t o t h ose s h ow n i n t h e S ched u l e[ , w h i ch l i m i t ed t h e excl u si on t o t h ose prof

essi on alser vi ces th at i n vol ved radi ograp h y]
. ” )
. W h en t h e pol i cy do e s no ts pe c i f

y a de f i ni t i o n o f pr o fe s s i o nal s e r vi c e s , a c o ur ti s f r e e t o a ppl y t he l egaldef

i ni t i on of

“pr of es si onalser vi c es ” to t he e xc l usi on, and Texas c our t s, as w el las c ou rt s i n t erpret i n g T exas l aw , of t en do so. I n co ncl usi on, al t hough t he pr ovi si on i s c onf usi ngl y w or ded and a l i t er al i nt er pre t at i on w oul d i m pl y t hat“ al loper at i ons ” ar e e xc l uded as pr of es si onal
s e r vi c e s , t he l i t e r ali nt e r pr e t at i o n i s unr e as o nab l e . Adm i r al has ad va nc e d t he
o nl y reasona bl e i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f t he e xc l us i o n: t hatt he pa r t i e s i nt e nde d t he l egaldef

i ni t i on o f p r of

es si onals er vi c es t o e xc l ude c ove r age f orpr of es si onal
s e r v ic e s in a n yo f F o r d ’ s o p e r a tio n s . B H aving determ i n ed that t h e professi on alser vi ces excl u si on i s operat i ve, w e n ow t urn t o w het hert he e xc l usi on def eat s c ove r age. The par t i es di sp u te
w het herE xc o’ s a l l e g a t i o ns a g a i ns tFor d m ee tt he l egaldef i ni t i on o f

“ pro fes si onal
s e r v ic e s .” A d m ir a l a r g u e s th a tth e u n d e r ly in gs u it is b a s e d o n ly o n F o r d ’s fai l ur e t o us e hi s s pe c i al i zed o rt e c hni c alkno w l e dg e i n pr e pa r i ng and i m pl em en t i n g t h e dri l lpl an . Ford res pon ds t h at s om e of E xco’ s al l egati on s are not bas e d o n s p e c i a l i z e d k no wl e d g e , a ndt hu s fa l lo ut s i d e t he p r o fe s s i o nal
s e r vi c e s e xc l us i o n, t he r e byt r i gg e r i ng Adm i r al ’ s dut y t o de fe nd. Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

7 I n det er m i ni ng t he appl i c abi l i t y o f ap r o fes si onals er vi c es ex c l usi on, Texas
c o ur t s a ppl y t he “ e i ghtc o r ne r s r ul e . ” The y l o o k o nl y t o t he f o urc o r ne r s o f

t he pol i cy an d the f

ou r c orners of

t h e u n derl yi n g com pl ai n tt o deter m i n e w h et h er a d u ty t o d e fe n d e x is ts
. Nat’ l Un i on Fi re Ins. Co. of P i t t sbu rgh, Pa. v. Merc h s. F ast Mot or L i n es, I

n c. , 93 9 S. W
. 2d 13 9, 14 1 ( Tex
. 19 97 )
. The c o ur t m us tf o c us o n t he fact u alal l egati on s i n t h e un derl yi n g pl ead i n g rat h er t h an t h e le g alt h eori es a lle g e d
. I

d. I f t he pl e ad i ng c o nt ai ns a l l e ga t i o ns t hat , w he n fai r l y and
r e as o nab l y c o ns t r ue d, s t at e a c aus e o f ac t i o n t hat i s po t e nt i al l y c o ve r e d b y t he po l i c y, t he n t he i ns ur e rha s a du t y t o de fe nd t he i ns ur e d i n t he und e r l yi ng la w s u it. I

d. at 142
. “ If

a peti t i on does not al l ege fact s w i t h i n t h e sc ope of
cov era ge , an i n su rer is no t l eg a l l y re q u i red to de fen d the su i t ag a i n st i ts i n su red
. ” S t u mph v. D allas Fi re Ins. Co. , 3 4 S .W .3 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 8 (T e x . A p p .— A u s tin 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). Si nc e t he i ns urance c o nt r ac tdo e s no tde f i ne pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s , t he
r e l e v a n td e f

i n i t i o n i s t h a tp r o v i d e d b yT e x a s l a w: [T ]h e ta s k m u s t a r is e o u to f a c t s p a r t ic u la rto th e in d iv id u a l’s s pe c i al i z e d v o cat i o n, [ and ]
. . . i tm us tb e ne c e s s ar y f o rt he pro fes si onalt o us e hi s spe c i al i ze d know l edge ort r ai ni ng. S u s m a n G o dfr ey , 9 8 2 S .W .2 d a t 4 7 6

– 7 7
. T h e rel evan tpl ead i n g f rom t h e un derl yi n g sui ti s t h e F ou rt h A m en ded Pet i t i o n, w hi c h a l l e ge s b r e ac h o f c o nt r ac ta ga i ns tFo r d f o rfai l i ng t o pr e ve ntt he b l ow ou t. E xc o a l l eg es th a t F ord bre a ch ed th e c o n tr a ct w i th E xc o b y fail i n g to “p r o p e r lyin s p e c t th e d r ill p ip e fo r c a s in g w e a r a s it w a s p u lle d o u t o f th e h o le ,”

“ i n st ruct t h e m u d l ogger t o l ook f or and reportm et alshav i n gs, ” an d “use ‘ di t ch
m a g n e ts,’a d e v ice th a t d e te cts a n d se g re g a te s m e ta l f ro m th e m u d .” E x co ’s F ou rt h A m en ded peti t i on al so s t ates t h at “ [n ]ot a lloperati on s of F ord w ere pro fes si onali n nat ure . W hi l e s eve r alof the abov e- des c r ibed om i ss i ons m ade b y For d r e qui r e d t he us e of F o r d’ s sp e c i al i z e d t r ai ni ng, ce r t ai n of t he o m i s s i o ns a nd Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

8 fai l u res t o actw ere done w i t h no n ecess ary professio n a l know l edg e an d w ere o u ts id e o f F o r d ’ s p r o fe s s io n a l ca p a c ity .” I ni t i al l y, w e no t e t hatw e a r e no tb o und byExc o ’ s s e l f

- s e r vi ng s t at e m e nt t hatno t al l o f For d’ s o pe r at i o ns w e r e pr o fe s s i o nal i n nat ur e . W e ne e d no ta c c e pt E x c o ’ s le g a l ch a r a c te r iz a tio n , o n lyits fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s . Se e Me r c hs
. Fast Mot or Lines , 939 S
. W
. 2d at 141
. Indeed , w h et h er or n otF o rd ’ s a ll eged
o p e r a tio n s w e r e p r o fe s s io n a l in n a tu r e is th e v e r y q u e s tio n w e m u s t a n s w e r . Ford c harac t er i ze s A dm i r al ’ s ar gum entas s t at i ng t hatev en ac t i ons t hat do notr equi r e t he e xer c i se o f spe c i al i ze d know l edge c ons t i t ut e “ pro fes si onal servi ces” i f

t h ey occur i n t h e c o u rs e o f i m pl em en t i n g a dri l l i n g pl an . Ford
corre ctl y p oin ts o u t th a t T ex a s cou rts h a ve rej ected a sta tu s-ba sed ap p roa ch to determ i n i n g i f

an al l egati on shou l d be con si dered a professi on alser vi ce. Ford ci t es t o Ut i ca , 1 41 S
. W
. 3d1 98 , a s “ m o s tc l o s e l y o n po i nt
. ” Ac c o r di ng t o Fo r d, Ut i cacom pel s a co ncl usi on thatsom e of t he al l egat i ons i nvol ve non- pro fes si onal cond u ct , t h ereby t ri ggeri n g coverage. Ut i cai nvo l ve d a c l ai m a ga i ns ta n a s s o c i at i o n o f do c t o r s b y num e r o us p la in tiffs w h o co n tr a c te d H e p a tit is C fr o m co n ta m in a te d d r u g s . Id
. at 20 0. The dr ugs w e r e c o nt am i nat e d b y a t e c hni c i an w ho had us e d t he m t o s upp o r thi s dr ug a d d ic tio n a n d th e n fille d th e b o tt le s w ith s a lin e to h id e th e th e ft. Id
. Al t hough t h e com pl ai n tal l eged n egl i gen ce i n both securi n g an d ad m i n i st eri n g t h e drug s, t he c o ur tdi d no ta ddr e s s w he t he r t he fai l ur e t o s e c ur e t he dr ugs c o ns t i t ut e d a fai l ur e i n pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s b e c aus e t he i ns ur e rc o nc e de d f o rpur po s e s o f

t he appealt hatt he fai l ure t o se c ure t he drugs w oul d i m pl i c at e a ge ner alr at hert han p r o fe s s io n a l d u ty
. Id
. a t 2 0 2 n .3
. T h u s , co n tr a r yto F o r d ’ s p r e s e n ta tio n , Ut i ca does n otadd ress t h e qu est i on presented by thi s c ase. A l t h ou gh t h e ot h er c ases Ford ci t es ar e m o re r el evan t , t h ey do n ot
ne c e s s ar i l y s upp o r t a c o nc l us i o n t hatc o ve r ag e e xi s t s . Fo re xa m pl e , i n G u a ra n ty Nati on al Insura n ce Co. v. Nort h R i ver Insura n ce Co. , 9 09 F
. 2 d 133 , 1 35 (5t h C i r. Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

9 1990) , t hi s c our thel d t hata pro fes si onal se r vi c es ex c l usi on di d notbarc ove r age w h en the com p l a i n t all eg ed tha t a h osp i tal fa i l ed to pro p erly secu re w i n d ow s to p re v e n t es ca p e or s u ic id e . A lth o u g h th is h o ld in gin d ica te s th a t n o t a llof a pr o fe s s i o nal ’ s a c t i o ns a r e “ pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s , ” i t s ay s l i t t l e ab o ut w he t he rt he al l e ga t i o ns i n t he i ns t ant c as e ar e ak i n t o s e c ur i ng a w i ndo w . Li ke w i s e , i n Aet na Fi re Un d erw ri t ers In suran ce Co. v. S ou t h w est ern E ngi n eer i ng Co. , 626 S. W
. 2d 99 (Tex
. App.

) Beau m o nt198 1, w r i tr e f ’ d n. r . e . ) , w he n a pi pe l i ne w as da m ag e d, t he c our tf

ound co ver age bec ause i tc oul d notdet er m i ne w het hert he e r r orw as fro m b adpl a n s (p ro fes sio n a l se rv ice ) or b a d d igg in g(n o n -p ro fes sio n a l i n n a tu re ). Th e c as e s upport s t he i dea t hata pr of es si onals er vi c es ex c l usi on doe s notbar coverage w h en som e of t h e al l egati on s i n vol ve professi on alser vi ces an d others do no t : i tsa ys l i t t l e abo uthow t he ac t i vi t i e s al l e ge d byE xc o sho ul d b e c l as s i f i e d. Asi de f r o m Exc o ’ s ba l d s t at e m e nt t hat c e r t ai n (uns pe c i f i e d) a c t s w e r e no np rofession a l , th e on l y a rg u a b l y n on -pro fessi on a lcon d u ct all eg ed w a s fa i l i n g to l oo k f orm et als havi ngs ort o use a m agnet t o det ec t shavi ngs i n m ud. The ac t ual per for m anc e o f t he s e a c t s i s p e r ha p s a ki n t o c o nd uc t t ha t we ha v e f o un d t o b e n on - professi on al
. B u t E xco i s not sui n g F ord becau se Ford w as t ol d to w atc h f or pi pe w earand m et als havi ngs and fai l ed t o do so. R at her , the c om pl ai nt i s t hat Ford fai l ed t o ac t upon i t s spe c i al i ze d know l edge t hatt hos e t as ks neede d t o b e pe r f o r m e d ( i
. e. , F o rd failed to in str u ct th e m u d log g e r to loo k for sh a v in g s). In d ee d , the sp ecif

i c fa i l u res a re li sted as su b -pa rts of a ge n era lfa i l u re “to p e r f o r m a d e q u a t e a n d c o m p e t e n t d r i l l i n g o p e r a t i o n s . ” I n o t h e r wor ds , t he al l egat i ons ar e no tt hatFor d i nco r r ec tl y pe r f or m ed s om e no n- pro fes si onal act i vi t y, bu tt h at Ford fai l ed to properl y i m pl em en ta pl an t o dri l la w el lover 16 , 00 0 fe e tde e p. U ltim a tel y, th e u n d erlyin gs u it a lle g e s th e e x is te n c e o f a n d fa ilu r e to fu lfill a contract , t h e very subj ectof w h i ch w as F ord’ s expert i se i n dri l l i n g operati on s. F o r d e s s e n tia llya r g u e s th a t a cla im th a t a p a r ty ca u s e d inju r yb yn e g lig e n tly Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/21/2010N o. 09- 50671

I n its motionfor s um m ar y ju dgment, Admiralal so argu ed th at no coverage was 4 avail abl e under eith er the excess oru mbrella policies. The excess coverage do es not applyto “any loss not c overed by the underlying insurance.” Th e umbrellapolicy“applie s onlyto the exposure s that are not c overed bythe [exce ss covera ge] and are not otherwise excluded bythis policy or anyof the underlying policie s.” B ecau se we hol d th at the professio nalservices exclu siondefe ats c overage in the underlying C GL policy , we likewise find no coverage under eith erth e exce ss oru mb rell ap olicie s. 10 perf orm i n g i t s prof

essi on alser vi ces i s not covered by a p rof essi on alser vi ces e x c lu s io n b e c a u s e s o m e o f th e b r e a c h in gc o n d u c t w a s a r g u a b lyn o n -te c h n ic a l in
n ature. A s A dm i ralpoi n t s out, t h i s r ead i n g of t h e ex clu sio n renders i tal m ost
m ean i n gl ess si n ce t h e i m pl em en ta ti on of a dri l l i n g pl an i n vari ably i n vol ves m en i a ltask s. F ord w a s task ed w i th en su ri n g th a t th e w elldid n ot blow ou t. T a k in g , o rn o t t a k in g , ce r ta in m e a s u r e s to e n s u r e t h a t th e d r ill p ip e d id n o t fa il und ert he par t i c ul ardr i l l i ng c ondi t i ons r equi r es For d’ s spe c i al i ze d know l edge
an d tr ai n i n g, an d thu s i s an excl u ded professi on alser vi ce. 4 IV Bec aus e w e c o nc l ude t hatt he pr o fe s s i o nals e r vi c e s e xc l us i o n a ppl i e s a nd t hat Adm i r al has no dut y t o de fe nd unde r t he CG L po l i c y, t he j udg m e nto f t he d is tr ic t c o u r t is R E V E R S E D a n d R E N D E R E D
. Case: 09-50671 Document: 00511118775 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/21/2010