there is no clear indication in the record to suggest that the plaintiffs decedent had previously received services rendered by a medical or psychological professional during the time he was living at the Kountry Kove apartments or on the day he was injured. However, even if there is such evidence, there is no indication in the record that the rendering or failure to render a professional service was causally connected to the accident. Moreover, the term “professional services” is not defined within the policy. Case law supports the proposition that the term “professional services” denotes those services rendered by someone with particularized knowledge or skill in his or her chosen field. See Atl. Lloyd’s Ins. Co. of Texas v. Susman Godfrey, LLP, 982 S.W.2d 472, 476 (Tex.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Chapman v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 35
holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment holding that witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation of adults and juveniles holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings holding that to qualify for a special factor increase the attorney must have some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question   holding that to qualify as a professional service the task must arise out of acts particular to the individuals specialized vocation