at, and just prior to, the time of his injuries were not professional services to which the policy exclusion would then apply. This Court finds that the services rendered to plaintiffs decedent while he was under BHA’s care were merely supervisory and custodial in nature. “An insurance company seeking to avoid liability through the operation of an exclusion has the burden of proving the facts necessary to the operation of the exclusion.” McMahon at 496. 2d 693, 698 (E.D.Wis.1999) (defining professional service as “[ajcts or services involving specialized knowledge, labor or skill which is predominately mental or intellectual rather than physical or manual”) (citation omitted); see also State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alpha Eng’g Servs., Inc., 208 W.Va. 713, 542 S.E.2d 876, 880 (2000) (<HOLDING>). In light of this definition of “professional
holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 holding in a case involving a professional services corporation that a court should not treat either the individuals title or the entity form as determinative holding that attorney who simply provided legal services to corporation did not participate in operation or management of enterprise regardless of whether he performed those services well or poorly properly or improperly holding that a professional services exclusion that defined the service at issue as preparing approving or failing to prepare or approve maps drawings opinions reports surveys change orders designs or specifications and supervisory inspection or engineering services was not ambiguous holding that negligence in the performance of engineering services is inherently undiscoverable