Risk, 208 F.Supp.2d at 1315, and because the Mor-ansais court explicitly limited its holding to professional malpractice claims, it is clear that the Moransais court did not intend its decision to reach breach of fiduciary duty claims. Therefore, the economic loss doctrine continues to bar breach of fiduciary duty claims if those claims are dependent upon a breach of contract claim after Moransais. Keeping that principle in mind, the court evaluates plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim. In Excess Risk, a post -Moransais decision, plaintiff Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc., (“ERU”), an ins rule did not bar breach of fiduciary duty claim where that claim was independent of breach of contract claim); Clayton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 729 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(<HOLDING>); Detwiler v. Bank of Cent. Fla., 736 So.2d
holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract