another and which also necessarily involves an undertaking in which a duty is created in one person to act primarily for another’s benefit in matters connected with such undertaking.” Caudill v. Salyersville Nat’l Bank, No. 2008-CA-017-MR, 2010 WL 45882, 2010 Ky.App. LEXIS 1, at *9 (Ky.Ct.App. Jan. 8, 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gresh, 311 Fed.Appx. at 770-71. A fiduciary' duty requires more than the generalized business obligation of good faith and fair dealing. See In re Sallee, 286 F.3d 878, 891 (6th Cir.2002) (interpreting Kentucky law); see a uciary relationships to exist in a number of contexts, although this determination is fact-specific to the relationship in question. See Henkin, Inc. v. Berea Bank & Trust Co., 566 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Ky.Ct.App.1978) (<HOLDING>); see also Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv.
holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case recognizing that the circumstances in which such authority may be exercised are limited and that it must be clear that the evidence sufficiently sustains all the elements of the lesser offense holding that when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a law it must be established that there are no set of circumstances under which the law would be valid holding that where the definition of lottery is expressly limited to 18 usc  1307b the definition cannot be applied to a related civil statute holding that because the circumstances which may create a fiduciary relationship are so varied  it would be unwise to attempt the formulation of any comprehensive definition that could be uniformly applied in every case