of the company” and breaches that duty. Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 122, 412 P.2d 47, 57 (1966). ¶ 15 Here, the relationship between the parties is that of directors and officers of a corporation to its shareholders. The parties do not dispute that a contract created that relationship. But “[i]n Arizona a director of a corporation owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its stockholders. This duty is in the nature of a trust relationship requiring a high degree of care on the part of the director.” Atkinson v. Marquart, 112 Ariz. 304, 306, 541 P.2d 556, 558 (1975) (c ntractual duty cannot transform a tort claim into one arising out of contract. See Benjamin v. Gear Roller Hockey Equip., Inc., 198 Ariz. 462, 466, ¶ 23, 11 P.3d 421, 425 (App.2000) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Phelps v.
holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding a defense based on a contractual waiver and release of liability did not permit the award of attorneys fees in a negligence action