conclude that the nature of the transaction in this case does not warrant application of the protections arising from an insurer-insured relationship. {64} Guest argues based on Lieber v. ITT Hartford Insurance Center, Inc., 15 P.3d 1030 (Utah 2000), that she should have been permitted to present evidence of the attorney fees she incurred in the prosecution of this case against Allstate as an item of damages. However, Lieber is premised on the existence of an insurance contract, see id. at 1032-33, and, thus, does not apply in the context before us. Moreover, attorney fees incurred in the enforcement of a right to indemnification are not a natural and probable consequence of the breach. See First Nat’l Bank of Clovis v. Diane, Inc., 102 N.M. 548, 555, 698 P.2d 5, 12 (Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). {65} Finally, Guest has not identified any
holding that although attorneys fees are usually not recoverable unless permitted by statute or contract contractual or statutory authorization was not necessary in a malpractice claim to recover attorneys fees and costs as damages holding that the defendant was only permitted to recover attorney fees as an item of special damages with respect to the underlying action in which the defendant was sued and was not permitted to recover attorney fees incurred in the malpractice portion of the case as damages holding that the obligee may recover attorney fees as an element of damages only up to the limit of the penal amount of the bond holding party not entitled to recover attorneys fees without also recoveringdamages for breach of contract in part because attorney fees are in the nature of costs not damages holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case