Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage for Suit Stemming from Faulty DNA Analysis
In a win for Wiley’s client, a Florida federal court held that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for underlying litigation arising out of the insured’s faulty DNA analysis services. Speckin Forensics, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 9:25-cv-80393-AMC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2025).
A DNA laboratory provided DNA analysis services for a forensics firm to support its client’s legal claims against various individuals. One individual contested the insured’s DNA analysis and filed a third-party claim against the forensics firm. Although the insured initially assured the forensics firm that its services were reliable, it ultimately admitted that the sample was contaminated and the analysis was defective, forcing the forensics firm to settle the third-party claim. The forensics firm later obtained a default judgment against the insured for loss that it incurred because of the insured’s flawed DNA analysis. The forensics firm, purporting to act as a third-party beneficiary, initiated this coverage litigation against the DNA laboratory’s insurer for coverage under its general liability policy. The policy provided specified coverage for “personal and advertising injuries” but included an exclusion for injuries “arising out of the rendering of or failure to render any professional service,” which “includes but is not limited to” a list of eleven enumerated services.
Applying Nevada law, the court held that the forensics firm was not entitled to insurance policy proceeds because the professional services exclusion barred coverage for the insured’s defective analysis. First, the court concluded that the professional services exclusion was not illusory because the exclusion did not eliminate all or even virtually all coverage under the policy. While broad, the exclusion left untouched coverage for other forms of personal and advertising injury, as well as for bodily injury and property damage not arising out of the insured’s professional services. Although the insured’s core business involved providing a professional service, the court recognized that some claims arising out of the insured’s business, distinct from its professional services, could still be covered.
Next, the court held that the exclusion was unambiguous, recognizing that the term “professional services” plainly required specialized knowledge, labor, or skill. DNA analysis was not explicitly identified as a professional service under the policy, but the definition’s enumerated list was non-exhaustive. The court held that DNA analysis services clearly fit.
Finally, the court agreed that the exclusion applied to the faulty DNA work at issue. Recognizing that the exclusion’s lead-in language is interpreted broadly, the court agreed with the insurer that the alleged harm ultimately stemmed from issues with the technical performance of the DNA analysis—not from the insured’s subsequent misrepresentations regarding the quality of its services. Although the insured’s failure to admit the defects in its analysis for several years may have increased the scope of the forensics firm’s loss, it did not alter the original cause.
