relationships, such as the attorney-client relationship, always involve a fiduciary duty. Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 253 (Tex.1962); M. Thomas Arnold, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, ACCOUNTANTS’ Liability 1994, 506 PLI/Lit 341, 347. In contrast, the accountant-client relationship does not always involve a fiduciary duty. Squyres v. Christian, 253 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (“Appellees have cited no case, and we have found none, to the effect that ... the mere handling of a general accounting business establishes such a fiduciary relationship between an accountant and one of his clients as would toll the statute of limitation;.... ”); Arnold, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, at 348-49. For example, an audit W.2d 415, 423 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Diesel Fuel Injection Serv., Inc. v.
holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action holding that negligence in the performance of engineering services is inherently undiscoverable holding that economic loss doctrine bars negligence claims as to engineering services related to roof repair and reconstruction holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract