Our precedent has distinguished between “professional” tasks and “administrative” tasks. For example, in Guaranty National v. North River Insurance Company, this court divided the conduct underlying plaintiff's allegation that the hospital had not properly secured him in his bed into two components: first, the hospital's decision that the plaintiff needed to be secured, which required professional training; and second, the hospital's “administrative” execution of this judgment, i.e., protecting patients with screws rather than a screen, which did not require professional training. 909 F.2d 133, 136 (5th Cir.1990). Here, because the underlying complaint alleges that Batie's injury was caused in part by conduct that did not constitute the provision of “professional services,” National Casualty's professional services exclusion does not limit its duty to defend.

"In cases involving separate and independent causation, the covered and the excluded event each independently cause the [insured's] injury, and the insurer must provide coverage despite the exclusion." Id. (citing Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1990)). "In cases involving concurrent causation, the excluded and covered events combine to cause the [insured's] injuries.

141 S.W.3d at 204. Among other examples of the separate and independent causation doctrine, the court cited Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1990), in which we held that a patient's suicide was proximately caused by both a hospital's failure to secure its windows and its failure to supervise the patient, such that an exclusion under the policy for liability "due to . . . the rendering of or failure to render . . . any service or treatment conducive to health or of a professional nature. . ." did not apply.

B. In addition, Barnes and Williams argue that they asserted "personal injury" claims for false imprisonment that are distinct from those that fit under the Assault and Battery Exclusion. They argue that, under Texas law, when a loss is caused by both a covered peril and an excluded peril, the insurer is liable, citing Guaranty National Insurance Co. v. North River Insurance Co., 909 F.2d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1990). In response, Scottsdale argues that the claims for false imprisonment and forcible restraint are so interrelated to the rape and assault claims that they are also excluded by the Assault and Battery Exclusion.

As distinguished from the case sub judice, these separate acts of negligence contributed to the death in a manner independent of his assistance in repairing the flat tire. Similarly, appellants claim this court's opinion in Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1990) supports their theory of concurrent causation. In Guaranty, this court held an insurer liable for a psychiatric hospital's negligence that resulted in a patient committing suicide by jumping out of a window of the hospital.

The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. N. River Insurance Co., 909 F.2d 133, 135 (5th Cir. 1990). "The insured party bears the initial burden of showing that there is coverage, while the insurer bears the burden of showing that any exclusion in the policy applies."

Texas state courts and federal courts applying Texas law have concluded that professional services include only “those services for which professional training is a prerequisite to performance.” Guaranty National Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company, 909 F.2d 133, 136 (5th Cir.1990) (quoting Duke University v. St. Paul and Marine Insurance Company, 96 N.C.App. 635, 386 S.E.2d 762, 766, review denied, 326 N.C. 595, 393 S.E.2d 876 (1990) ). In other words, “[p]rofessional services are considered those acts which use the inherent skills typified by that profession, not all acts associated with the profession.”

Cf. Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hosp., 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 260 Cal.Rptr. 886, 896-97 (1989) (noting that "a hospital has a professional responsibility to insure the competence of its medical staff," and holding that failure to fulfill "that responsibility constitutes 'professional negligence' involving conduct necessary to the rendering of professional services"). Under the policy at issue in this case, coverage for Dr. Winkworth's failure to render adequate medical services, which gave rise to Flores's injuries, was excluded from coverage under the "professional services" clause. Flores relies heavily on Guaranty National Insurance Co. v. North River Insurance Co., 909 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1990), in arguing that Dr. Winkworth's decisions regarding the hiring, training and supervision of Curtis were administrative in nature, and did not require professional judgment. In Guaranty National, a patient admitted to a hospital for psychiatric care jumped from a fourth floor window to her death.

In support of this position the Association cites two cases. See Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1990); Potomac Ins. Co. v. Jayhawk Med. Acceptance Corp., 198 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2000). Although both cases discuss the application of a professional services exclusion, only one involves a health care provider and is sufficiently similar to our case to be persuasive.

MAUC attempts to circumvent the holdings of Tarrant County and Garrison by arguing that there is concurrent causation in this case: (1) the negligence of MAUC and Pena in allowing Zertuche to leave the premises; and (2) the assault by an unknown assailant. It asserts that because one of those causes is insured, Burlington has a duty to defend. In support of this proposition, MAUC cites Warrilow v. Norrell, 791 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied), Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1990), and Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 7 F.3d 86 (5th Cir. 1993). We will examine each in turn.