chips” in settlement negotiations. Id. at 566 ¶ 26, 96 P.3d at 564. 2. ¶ 19 We reject the Premium Cigars rationale. The relationship between an insurance agent and client, while certainly important, differs from that between an attorney and client in several critical respects. ¶ 20 Attorneys are fiduciaries with duties of loyalty, care, and obedience, whose relationship with the client must be one of “utmost trust.” In re Piatt, 191 Ariz. 24, 26, 951 P.2d 889, 891 (1997). By contrast, insurance agents generally are not fiduciaries, but instead owe only a duty of “reasonable care, skill, and diligence” in dealing with clients. Darner, 140 Ariz. at 397, 682 P.2d at 402; see also Sw. Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld, 183 Ariz. 444, 448, 904 P.2d 1268, 1272 (App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, duties of reasonable care
holding that contract between parties not law of negligence gave rise to duty and accordingly provided exclusive source of remedy holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that it was a question of breach not duty whether an agents failure to advise a client about additional insurance gave rise to liability holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim