the James River Defendants could not have breached any fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs. (Shetland Off. Mem. at 18, 17, 22). Contribution is accordingly unavailable with respect to this claim. Further, Appaloosa and Tepper’s claim for common law negligence against the James River Defendants must similarly be dismissed. It is clear that under New York law, a claim for negligence requires that the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff. See Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 389, 342, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). Further, where a party has not assumed a professional or expert position establishing a duty with respect to the claimed breach, no such duty exists. See Petrosky v. Brasner, 181 Misc.2d 897, 695 N.Y.S.2d 281, 285 (1999), aff'd, 279 A.D.2d 75, 718 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1st Dep’t 2001) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Tepper and Appaloosa’s claim for
holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that defendant insurance company could not be held liable in negligence to a plaintiff for failure to disclose the insureds medical condition where defendant insurance company had not assumed a professional and expert position with respect to the insureds physical condition holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that insureds failure to list his brother as a member of the household was a material misrepresentation that provided the insurance company with grounds to rescind the policy holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor