1. The most direct reading of the endorsement would lead to a conclusion that it defines professional services as "all operations of the insured ", and the only reasonable interpretation of this language is that the endorsement applies to all operations of the insured, but only excludes those operations that involve "specialize knowledge or training".

2. The Plaintiffs' pleadings stating that some of the conduct of the defendant was outside its professional capacity and required no professional knowledge was insufficient to by-pass the exclusion and trigger a defense obligation. The court found this language to be a self-serving characterization of the facts, rather than alleged facts that would plead into coverage.

3. Perhaps most importantly for future cases involving professional services exclusions, the court found that just because the Plaintiffs' petition breaks down a professional's conduct and criticizes the professional's failure to perform a menial task does not necessarily make the conduct non-professional in nature. When those menial tasks are not assigned, but require professional expertise to understand why they need to be done, they are still professional in nature, even though a non-professional could do those tasks if instructed to do so.