Hendrex v. Philadelphia Indem Ins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-20220
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.