
    CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Mutual Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abraham ROGOZINSKI, Majorie Rogozinski, Chaim Rogozinski, Jeanie Rogozinski, Sam Rogozinski, Randi Rogozinski, Defendants-Appellants, Presser, Lahnen & Edelman, P.A., Defendant.
    No. 12-15291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 23, 2013.
    Jonathan Marc Matzner, Jack T. Frost, Green Ackerman & Frost, PA, Boca Ra-ton, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    A. Hinda Klein, Thomas Regnier, Richard A. Buckley, Esquire, Weston, FL, John Edward Herndon, Jr., Conroy Sim-berg Ganon Krevens Abel Lurvey Morrow & Schefer, PA, Tallahassee, FL, Joseph A. Frein, Joseph A. Frein, PA, Orlando, FL, 32801 for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before BARKETT, MARCUS, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants, the Rogozinski brothers— Abraham, Chaim, and Sam — all contributed to medical inventions which were patented and then licensed to medical manufacturers. The proceeds from these ventures were erroneously classified in their federal income tax returns by their tax accountant, the Presser firm, as ordinary income instead of capital gains. The Rogozinskis sued the Presser firm alleging negligence in the preparation of their tax returns from 1989 through 2006 and claiming damages due to their overpayment of income taxes. Presser sought coverage from Appellee Camico Mutual Insurance Company under Presser’s professional liability insurance policy with Camico. When the Rogozinskis and the Presser firm settled their case, the only outstanding question was whether Camico was obligated to pay the per claim policy limit of $1,000,000 to the Ro-gozinskis or whether the Rogozinskis’s damage claim constituted two or more separate claims, thereby triggering the policy’s $2,000,000 aggregate limit. In the declaratory judgment action filed by Camico, the district court agreed with Camico that under the definitions in the policy the Rogozinskis’s claim must be viewed as only one claim limited to the $1,000,000 cap in coverage.

Having considered the briefs and oral argument of the parties, we agree with the district court that the express language of the policy makes it clear that the Rogo-zinskis’s claim is one claim not the two or more separate claims contemplated by the language of the Camico policy.

AFFIRMED.  