Court Opinion

ID: 9953703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 18:00:33.385478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:30.663705
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20220            Document: 55-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   United States Court of Appeals

                for the Fifth Circuit                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                          FILED
                                   ____________
                                                                                    March 21, 2024

                                    No. 23-20220                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________                                           Clerk

Janette Hendrex; Recessability, Incorporated,

                                                                Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                          versus

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:20-CV-3734
                   ______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Plaintiffs Janette Hendrex and Recessability, Inc. (collectively,
“Hendrex”) sued their professional liability insurer, Defendant Philadelphia
Indemnity Insurance Co. (“Philadelphia”), for allegedly breaching its duty
to defend a lawsuit against Hendrex by Scoggins Therapies, Inc.
(“Scoggins”). That lawsuit alleged Hendrex had wrongfully solicited
Scoggins’s clients in breach of a subcontract. Agreeing with Philadelphia that

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20220       Document: 55-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/22/2024

                                No. 23-20220

this alleged breach did not trigger Philadelphia’s duty to defend under the
insurance policy because it did not arise from Hendrex’s provision of
“professional services,” the district court granted Philadelphia’s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed Hendrex’s claims. See Atl. Lloyd’s Ins. Co.
of Tex. v. Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., 982 S.W.2d 472, 476–77 (Tex. App. 1998)
(“To qualify as a professional service, the task must arise out of acts
particular to the individual’s specialized vocation.”); see also Hartford Cas.
Ins. Co. v. DP Eng’g, L.L.C., 827 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2016) (adopting
Susman Godfrey’s definition of “professional services” when undefined in a
liability insurance contract in Texas). Hendrex timely appealed.
       Having considered the district court’s thorough opinion, the briefs,
and the record, and having heard oral argument, we find no reversible error.
       AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

                                      2